The Quest For The Greatest Hero Ever: The Dark Ages (476-1100) [Archive]

Lord Macbeth

11-04-2010, 04:32 AM

With Odysseys winning the Antiquity Poll we move onto the Dark Ages, and now turn our attention to the ten heroes chosen by...by...by a panel of people who debated back and forth because...someone has to, I guess! ;)

The nominees are:

King Arthur
Roland
Beowulf
Cu Chulainn
Aladdin
Rostam
Sigurd
Byrhtnoth
Egill Skallagrímsson
Scheherazade

So cast your vote above and then, by all means, cast your stones, your slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (up--better save that sort of talk for when we get to the Jacobean Period!) and debate away.

I chose King Arthur, and for me, though there are MANY interesting mythological figures here, in my view it comes down to either King Arthur and what I would argue (and I know some are already prepared to dispute) as being one of the most recognizable, influential, and important legends of all time (who HASN'T heard of King Arthur and, usually, Guinevere, Merlin, Lancelot, and then at least knowing OF The Knights of the Round table?) or Beowulf in what is arguably the greatest work of poetry in this era and one of the earliest--if not the earliest--works in literature.

I ultimately side with Arthur, but I could and would happily go with either choice; among my reasons:

-The sheer magnitiude of arthur's presence in Western consciousness as a whole...there are few figures in any form of art in the West that we can say with some certainty most people know or at least know of that aren't Biblical: Hercules falls into that category, to be sure, everyone's heard of him...Hamlet certainly, and perhaps Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet...I'd say most people in Western Civilization would recognize Robin Hood, perhaps Quasimodo, and a few others: King Arthur is in this rare group in a way that many of the above names are not; not only would I argue many people today would not be aware of them who weren't into English, even someone like myself who practically devotes himself to literature hadn't heard of a couple of those figures. EVERYONE knows of King Arthur.

-In terms of actions alone...well, he pulls The Sword from the Stone, unites England in the Dark Ages, ushers in a Golden Age, fights battles, and presides over what is probably the greatest collection of literary heroes in history (Lancelot, Gawain, Tristan, Percivale, Gareth, Bors, Bedivere, Galahad, and many other Knights, I'd say the aggregate total of heroic feats here as a group are second to NONE, not to the Merry Men, the Three Musketeers, no one) so he certainly seems to have some very strong points to his name.

-While I'm not English, I WOULD have to assume having a guy like Arthur as a national legendary hero would be sort of nice, as far as literary figures go he seems like a pretty all-around good choice...

-As ironic as it sounds coming right after a "Arthur is an English national symbol" argument, Arthurian Legend WAS one of the few legends that not only spread about Europe and not only endured but was adopted and proliferated by the people of Europe--some of the best Arthur legends come from England, yes, but also from Wales, from France, from areas of Germany...he's pretty wide-spread in a sway that maybe some of the other fiogures aren't, and has endured probably better in the common collective consciousness than all the other figures, as even Beowulf, with his GREAT literary masterpiece, isn't exactly "known" to many English majors. Say "King Arthur" to anyone in the West and they know who he is, and likely would even be able to tell something about what he did, ie, "The Sword in the Stone," "He had the Roudn Table," "He ruled over Dark Ages England," etc.

-Ideas associated with Arthur have gone on to also become embedded into our cultural being--"Camlelot" has come to represent an ideal, Romantic government. It could be argued that the concept behind the Roudn Table in the literature--that no one sits at the head and thus all are equals--is one of theearliest demonstrations of a democratic mindset in literature. The knights that are associated with Arthur's kingdom vary, as some, such as Tristan and to an extent possibly Gawain, have texts and a life outside the Arthurian canon. Still, Tristan still receives at least a bit more support because of the Arthurian Legend, and thus because of King Arthur; Gawain is nearly entirely dependent upon his King existing, as the "other" Gawain, if the two were related at all, certainly hasn't held up over the years, and even in that era went by the wayside. Then there are knights such as Galahad and Lancelot which are characters through and through and need Arthur first, else we would lose arguably the best-known knight in the West (and one of the greatest heroes of his age) and the Grail Knight. On that subject, consider all the events that are linked to Arthur, most prominently The Quest for the Holy Grail and the Lancelot/Guinevere Romance with the Fall of Camelot. Without Arthur the first one likely never occurs, adn thus we lose some of the greatest literature of that age (and really of all time, beautiful prose) and the latter...well, Lancelot/Guinevere really is Tristan and Isolde all over again, so even if Lance and Guin never were created it could be argued wthat with Tristan and Isolde (and later tales such as ) we'd ahve the essence of the tale; even so, Lancelot and Guinevere HAVE stood out over time as a great medevial romance, adn that's also due in no small part to the second portion of that description, namely the Fall of Camelot. No Arthur, and we lose this entire saga, the biggest breakup before The Beatles (sorry, had to say it! lol) and with it such brilliant works as Le Morte D'Arthur. Even if you want to argue--not altogether incorrectly--that Mallory's book is simply a collection of Arthurian tales, many believe he DID write some original stories for the book, and his account of this Fall is the best known and really the best working of it, one of the better tragedies in Medevial Literature.

So yes--I choose Arthur.

Oh, and I have one more reason...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

;)

Lord Macbeth

11-04-2010, 04:35 AM

Oh, nuts--the poll got messed up...

Can a mod please put a poll up, if that's alright?

In the meantime...

King Arthur-1 (+1)
Roland-0
Beowulf-0
Cu Chulainn-0
Aladdin-0
Rostam-0
Sigurd-0
Byrhtnoth-0
Egill Skallagrímsson-0
Scheherazade-0

prendrelemick

11-04-2010, 07:01 AM

Lokasenna

11-04-2010, 08:59 AM

I was going to choose Beowulf, because he risks all for valour's sake, rather than advancement. He heard of Grendel and wanted to test himself against him. But King Arthur is a contender. Its not easy being a King and having to delegate heroic tasks to others. But then, leadership rather than performance is another kind of heroism.

Beowulf and Byrhtnoth both, in my opinion, feed into an Anglo-Saxon literary tradition that is very subtley criticising concepts of heroism. Both obey the tenets of the heroic code, and both ultimately die in vain trying to be superhuman heroes. Beowulf in particular is such a 'hero' that he arguably becomes as monstrous as the monsters. So for that reason, my school of thought prevents me from voting for either of them, though in one sense it does make them the greatest hero, insofar as they both take it to illogical extremes.

Meh, he won't win, but I'm going for Egill Skallagrímsson. True, he's an anti-hero, but a character of tremendous depth and expression. He's capable of extreme brutality (theft, blackmail, adultery, murder, rape, black magic, infanticide and so forth), but also of intense human emotion, which comes across so powerfully in his incredible poetry.

Also, I ask you, how many other heroes have harnessed a way of weaponising projectile vomit?

Lord Macbeth

11-04-2010, 09:51 AM

The last poll went five days, and that went well, so this one will go from the 4th-9th, I guess...

JCamilo

11-04-2010, 01:28 PM

B. Laumness

11-04-2010, 01:48 PM

If you want to make a poll on literary heroes and not on historical persons, I don't see why you put Arthur in this era since his literary reputation comes in a large part from Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chrétien de Troyes, who are authors of the 12th century.

mortalterror

11-04-2010, 02:24 PM

I picked Rostam, largely because the quality of his tale is so much above the rest of his competitors. Firdawsi is the Middle Eastern equivalent of Homer, Dante, or Shakespeare, and he hopelessly outclasses Malory or the other anonymous writers. Beowulf is a good poem, but since it's essentially lost until the nineteenth century, it is nowhere near as influential as the Shahnamah.

B. Laumness

11-04-2010, 04:17 PM

prendrelemick

11-04-2010, 05:12 PM

I voted for Beowulf simply because his is the story that stirs my blood. His speech where he chooses to meet Grendel unarmed is the clincher.

Into the conflict: with my hand-grip alone

I ’gainst the foe will strive, and struggle for my life--

He shall endure God's doom whom death shall bear away

Mutatis-Mutandis

11-04-2010, 05:44 PM

I had to vote for King Arthur. Just such an awesome mythology around him. Beowulf comes in a close second.

Though, while I was looking the ones up that I've never heard of, by Cu Chulainn and Sigurd sound pretty cool. Any reading to suggest on them? Also, I could revisit some of the King Arthur mythology, too.

JCamilo

11-04-2010, 08:20 PM

Yeats poetry has a lot of Cu Chulainn and Sigurd, I guess either you can read Wagner material about it or go after some edition of Eddas. I also think Fritz Lang movies about him are nice. Albeit mute and black and white.

Lord Macbeth

11-04-2010, 09:38 PM

You should consider not using so much absolutes in your descriptions. Frankly, Beowulf? Earliest works of literature? more than 1500 years after Homer??? And I never saw the work praised so highly for being one of the greatest poems of his time and its influence is considerable low when compared with the Roland'Song (Continental Literature, not British literature dominated europe at that time. Beowulf itself has influences of Aeneid and is very important to english literature, but even so Chaucer replaced him.).

And it is not that King Artur circle spread on Europe (which is not also false), but how he also absorbed "minor" adventures and heroes to his circle. He did with even with strong celtic legends or christian themes.

And I repeat, as much popular he is, you must stop thinking everyone know him or that he is so influential - mostly, that english literature is that influential. It is only after XIX century it became so dominant, before, it was marginal, not even touching the power of Rome. What great English majors know is just it, nothing relevant. The majority of population has no idea who Quasimodo is, and the english list (Romeo, Juliet, Hamlet), specially the crazy danish prince is also not as universal.

The round table is certainly not one of the earliest concepts of democracy ever. It cann't be argued. Not only is a concept similar to historical reality from a dude named Charles, as the concept of democracy predates it by thousand years and the round table is no different from the last supper concept, where all share with Jesus, his own sacrifice. Or pagan leaders gathering. One of two is more likely the inspiration beyond the round table, which is not because of democracy, but chivalirity code. And finally, he did not united England, that is not his story, he defended Britain against Saxons (I am sure you are aware, England is formed by saxons too).

-I meant Beowulf as one of the earliest pieces in ENGLISH (or at least early-English) literature, I didn't mean overall...I just voted for Odysseus a few days ago as the greatest hero of Antiquity, so I of course didn't mean earliest EVER, just one of the earlier works of English. Sorry If I misspoke, er, mistyped.

;)

-While I'll concede that I am--somewhat understandably, I think, living in an English-speaking culture--a tad baised towards English literature, I AM NOT wholly focused on them, I did acknowledge the French and Germans and all else within my arguments...if anything I am WESTERN-centric, but, again, I think that's somewhat understandable given my location.

-Further, I honestly cannot think of ANYONE in the West who has NEVER heard of Hamlet, Romeo, or Juliet...they'll associate Hamlet with Shakespeare and "To be or not to be" and maybe that'd be all, and maybe only see Romeo and Juliet as a famous pairing, but they'd STILL KNOW OF THEM. The same, to a lesser degree, I'd contend can be said of Quasimodo--I'd say most people will have at least heard of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

-I admitted Arthur absorbed other legends and figures into his own legend--I dis so specifically in the case of Tristan--but my point was and is that if not for Arthur they'd (those other stories) be a scattered collection of Medevial stories and NOT as well known as they are under the umbrella of "The Arthurian Legend."

-I prefaced The Round Table as being ONE of the earlier examples of a democratic showing, I didn't come out and call it the be all and end all. And I meant that he united the "English" for his time, that is, for the purposes of Arthur's legend the Saxons aren't "yet" English, but rather an agressive force that, as you said, needs to be defended against, and Arthur does that, and in doing that unites those different people around him to do that, to unite and defend as one. Perhaps I phrased what I meant awkardly, perhaps it'd be more appropriate to say he unified the Britons or, to be conservative, the to-be-English factions that was in the region, and so perhaps he didn't unify an "England" yet for, as you pointed out, that WOULD have to include the Saxons. He united those people who were not YET English, he was a unifying personality in a time of turmoil, that was my main intended point.

I really don't understand why you're so hostile to The Arthurian Legend, you don't seem to think it has much literary or artistic importance, and given the amount of literature, art, music, and other such workings with Arthur, and given that he has a prominence few characters in literature have (I AGAIN hold that most will have at least HEARD OF Arthur, or for that matter Hamlet or The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and certainly more will know of them than, say, Scheherazade) I fail to see how you can claim he doesn't occupy an importance place in literature; your main argument seems to consist of the fact that he was influenced/his legend was influenced/composed of various other materials--chivalric codes, othe characters like Tristan coming in, etc.--but I would argue that not only is all literature subject to influence, but that the fact Arthur has so many influences within his legend makes his story one of the more complete pictures of what was valued, what was WORTH having as an influence at that time, and he has plenty of original material to go with that as well.

Incidentally, the Great King is leading at the moment... :)

stlukesguild

11-04-2010, 10:25 PM

I have to agree with JCamilo and Mortalterror. The Roland legend is far greater than that of Arthur... at least until the 19th century... and Beowulf... as fine as the book is... is but a single fragment lost to most of history and having little impact upon other narratives (or little life outside the Beowulf text. Rostand, however, is the greatest hero of the Shanameh, which as Mortal suggests, is something of the Persian/Islamic equivalent of Dante, Homer, and Shakespeare... and I would add the Bible.

The Shanameh, of Book of Kings, is quite like many of the Hebrew Biblical texts in that the work seeks to establish something of the history of the Pesian people and Persian culture after a period of conquest and captivity... by the Arabs, the Mongols, and the Turks. The book is the central secular text of the Persian culture... even unto the present... and with the Qur'an it establishes much of the mythos of Persia. The tales of the Shanameh have been told and retold and built upon by multiple poets and writers (rather like the Homeric legends, the Bible, the tales of Roland, Dante, and little else. Also like Homer, Dante, the Bible, and a few other central texts, the tales of Firdowsi have resulted in a wealth of artistic masterpieces:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1078/5147663318_fe3498bb41_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/5147060173_5536027c08_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1224/5147060097_64c2027f60_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/5147060041_67e5d7102e_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/5147663010_e9bbb16394_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1238/5147059737_39ffd65bde_b.jpg

As the greatest hero of the Shanameh, a great many of the endless paintings of scenes from the the book center upon Rostam.

stlukesguild

11-04-2010, 11:43 PM

I really don't understand why you're so hostile to The Arthurian Legend...

I don't think anyone is hostile to the Arthurian legends... but they are suggesting that there are other literary figures from the medieval period that are quite a bit more important. The period that you have defined as the "The Dark Ages" (476-1100) was certainly something of a dark time for much of Western Europe... and certainly for the British Isles. In David Crystal's The Stories of English, the historian/author notes that the entire body of Old English writing to 1150 consists of just over 3000 texts (most being brief, dry record keeping or historical documentation) and results in some 3 million words. Charles Dickens, on the other hand, accounts for 4 million+ alone. Simply put, Britain was not an important political, cultural, or literary nation during this period, and as such the literature of the era had scant impact upon the whole of literature... until far later.

While Britain was in the "dark ages", Islamic Spain, the Middle East, the Persians, the Mongols, India, the Byzantines, and the Chinese were living in a "golden age" in many ways. Roland, who figures large in French, Italian, and Spanish literature, was a character whose adventures centered upon what was perhaps the greatest struggle of the era in Europe: the wars between the Christian French and Islamic Spain which culminate with Charles Martel and Carolus Magnus (or Charlemagne) and end with the Muslim ouster from Europe in 1492. Unfortunately, the Roland/Orlando legend, like the Arthurian legend, is not given its greatest literary form until much later with Ariosto's Orlando Furioso (the Madness of Roland), and Matteo Maria Boiardo's Orlando Innamorato (Roland in Love).

The greatest literary achievements of this period are simply not European. This is an indisputable fact. Du Fu, Li Bai, and Wang Wei, generally acknowledged as the 3 greatest Chinese poets... equal to the very best that Western literature has to offer... were all active in the 8th century. The greatest Hebrew poets outside of the Bible, including Yehuda Halevi, Moses Ibn Ezra, Samuel ha-Nagid, and Solomon Ibn Gabirol were all active in Islamic Spain... along side of endless (often anonymous) Islamic lyrical poets who would impact the whole of the European lyrical poetry tradition. The Ramayana of India takes its form around the 11th century... and Persian and Arabic literature is going through the golden age or "classical era" with Firdowsi's epic the Shanameh and the collected tales of the 1001 Nights/Arabian Nights as the two towering achievements of the era.

you don't seem to think it has much literary or artistic importance, and given the amount of literature, art, music, and other such workings with Arthur, and given that he has a prominence few characters in literature have (I AGAIN hold that most will have at least HEARD OF Arthur, or for that matter Hamlet or The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and certainly more will know of them than, say, Scheherazade

Yes, Arthur is of great importance... especially in the Victorian world where the Arthurian legends are built upon by authors such as Tennyson and artists such as the Pre-Raphaelites. As someone with more than a little art history background, however, I'd be hard pressed to come up with many paintings prior to the Romantics that deal with the Arthurian legends... but I can come up with a great many dealing with Roland and the Shanameh. I agree that Arthur may be a better-known name in the English-speaking world than Romand or Rostam or Sheherezade... but to state that certainly more have heard of Arthur ignores the fact that there are hundreds or millions... over a billion... in the Islamic world to whom these stories are as well-known as the Biblical tales or Greek legends are (or once were) in the West.

If we look at the Arabian Nights we will be absolutely stunned by the impact and influence it has had... in spite of the fact that it was not translated into any Western language until the 18th century French translation. Writers who have been influenced by the Arabian Nights... built upon it or alluded to it include: Henry Fielding, Edgar Allen Poe (who wrote a Thousand and Second Night), Naguib Mahfouz, John Barth (who wrote extensively on the text and based his novel The Last Voyage of Somebody the Sailor upon the Sinbad tales), Jorge Luis Borges (who repeatedly alluded to the tales), Salman Rushdie, Goethe, Walter Scott, Thackeray, Wilkie Collins, Elizabeth Gaskell, Flaubert, Stendhal, Dumas, Gérard de Nerval, Pushkin, Tolstoy, Hofmannsthal, Conan Doyle, W. B. Yeats, H. G. Wells, Cavafy, Italo Calvino, Georges Perec, H. P. Lovecraft, Marcel Proust, A. S. Byatt, etc...

There are multiple musical works inspired by the Arabian Nights, the most famous being Rimsky-Korsakov's Sheherazade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR36PRgBFzA&feature=related

And then we have the endless film and cartoon adaptions: Ali Baba, Aladdin and the Lamp, The Thief of Baghdad, etc...

And all of these are responses to a book that was written in Arabic and not translated into any Western language until the 18th century.

And the Shanameh? As one professor notes, During the ten centuries passed after Firdausi composed his monumental work, heroic legends and stories of Shahnameh have remained the main source of the storytelling for the peoples of this region: Persians, Pashtuns, Afghans, Kurds, Gurans, Talishis, Armenians, Georgians, North Caucasian peoples, etc. Unfortunately Islamic/Middle-Eastern culture has remained an enigma and an exotic mystery to much of the West even into the present. The Shanameh is recently been translated by Dick Davis (albeit edited... and not all in poetic form) while there is a decent older translation available on the net done by Arthur George Warner and Edmond Warner.

Lord Macbeth

11-05-2010, 12:01 AM

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.)

mortalterror

11-05-2010, 01:55 AM

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.

Lord Macbeth

11-05-2010, 02:14 AM

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...

mortalterror

11-05-2010, 03:14 AM

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.

JCamilo

11-05-2010, 03:39 AM

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.

Lord Macbeth

11-05-2010, 03:42 AM

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.

Lord Macbeth

11-05-2010, 03:47 AM

And 100th post! To celebrate...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7740lGif65Y

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

:D

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!!!"

;)

Petrarch's Love

11-05-2010, 12:11 PM

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.

JCamilo

11-05-2010, 01:31 PM

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. :mad5:

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.

mortalterror

11-05-2010, 02:13 PM

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

JCamilo

11-05-2010, 02:35 PM

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.

B. Laumness

11-05-2010, 04:21 PM

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...

stlukesguild

11-05-2010, 04:46 PM

mortalterror

11-05-2010, 05:53 PM

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)

Lord Macbeth

11-05-2010, 06:16 PM

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...:incazzato:

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! :D ) 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.

mortalterror

11-05-2010, 07:01 PM

LordMacbeth, I think that the reason we have so many more Arthurian movies than Roland movies is for the same reason that the Western is a major genre at all. Namely, Hollywood is located in California and not in France. That's probably why there are also so many more movies about the American Revolution than there are about the French Revolution, more series about the American Civil War than the English Civil War. If the seat of all media were in Dublin, then doubtless Finn McCool would be a household name. We tend to favor our local and native culture. In fact, I'm surprised that JBI hasn't offered an alternative Chinese hero nobody's ever heard of in order to trump our western arrogance.

I'll admit that I'd heard of Arthur long before I'd heard of Roland, because I used to watch Disney's The Sword in the Stone, not because I'd read any good books about him. If this is a literary debate, then it has to be admitted that all the best books are on Roland's side. If it's a historical debate, then Roland wins again, since he was obviously more influential over a much longer time. If it's a character debate, Roland is just a cooler character with greater adventures and labors. The only way that Arthur wins this fight, is if you narrowly confine the parameters to just the past couple of years, and lets face it, the years you're talking about, you aren't basing his popularity on books.

Dante's Inferno isn't important or popular because a video game just came out about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdqY2a9iRXw Dante's Inferno is important because of it's excellent literary qualities.

Lord Macbeth

11-05-2010, 07:21 PM

I'll admit that I'd heard of Arthur long before I'd heard of Roland, because I used to watch Disney's The Sword in the Stone, not because I'd read any good books about him. If this is a literary debate, then it has to be admitted that all the best books are on Roland's side. If it's a historical debate, then Roland wins again, since he was obviously more influential over a much longer time. If it's a character debate, Roland is just a cooler character with greater adventures and labors. The only way that Arthur wins this fight, is if you narrowly confine the parameters to just the past couple of years, and lets face it, the years you're talking about, you aren't basing his popularity on books.

Dante's Inferno isn't important or popular because a video game just came out about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdqY2a9iRXw Dante's Inferno is important because of it's excellent literary qualities.

First--I HATE THAT GAME! THAT IS AN ABOMIONATION! IT'S LIKE MAKING HAMLET INTO AN AEROBICS VIDEO!!! THE WRATH!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Up--great, Circle of Hell for me now...) ;)

I didn't confine the conversation to the last couple years. AT ALL. I said, and I quote, "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."

I'm taking the whole thing, Dark Ages to today, into account, and I even acknowledged Roland had a period of outright superiority.

One thing, though, something you said...

"I'll admit that I'd heard of Arthur long before I'd heard of Roland, because I used to watch Disney's The Sword in the Stone, not because I'd read any good books about him."

With all due respect--how can you make a fair comparison if you haven't read Arthur? That's like saying The Roling Stones are a better band than The Beatles without ever hearing Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

I think you're being rather unfair to Arthur as a result--you've seen the Disney version? You've never read Mallory's epic, or Gawain's tale, or heard Wagener's incredible opera, or the older Welsh stories?

Not very fair, in my opinion...

Lord Macbeth

11-05-2010, 07:26 PM

Really:

Mallory, Gawain's poem, the Vulgate Cycle, Wagner's opera--generally mentioned as one of the greatest ever--the Welsh stories...

I'm not putting Roland down, but I AM saying that I think, perhaps, Arthur might have some more ammunition that hasn't been acknowledged.

(And am I to take it from your placing Arthur primarily in the scope of movies and the like that you view him more as some sort of pop culture figure instead of a geuinely good literary character?)

Wilde woman

11-05-2010, 07:29 PM

I picked Arthur because I'm an Arthurianist, but I realize he's not everyone's cup of tea. I won't argue he's the greatest hero ever, but his literary and cultural influence has been undeniable. Now, whether or not his popularity is due to literary quality or not is open to debate. Most people who haven't studied anything but Malory or Tennyson think that all there is to Arthur is chivalry and courtly love, though there is so much more.

Random note: In my paleography class the other day, we worked through the scripts of Malory and the Gawain poet, and I admit I had a couple fangirly moments. But in my defense, the Anglo-Saxonist also freaked out a bit when we looked at the Beowulf facsimiles.

Having said that, I can definitely see why Roland or Beowulf would be more appealing choices. And I personally have a soft spot for Scheherazade.

I haven't read anyone else's responses yet, but hopefully I'll have time this weekend, after reading through a bunch of Perceval and Yvain texts.

Cunninglinguist

11-05-2010, 09:13 PM

Milton had been thinking about writing an epic on Arthur, but chose the biblical characters - as for sheer influence these guys trumph anyone of the heros listed - as his theme instead and wrote Paradise Lost. Had he not, or had he lived longer, we would have probably had an epic about Arthur sitting in quality next to Dante. I think this speaks to Arthur’s influence as far back as the mid 17th century.

Arthur’s great magnitude of recent influence, with that “Victorian reboot” or whatever it was called, and even looking back at Milton, could make up for its relatively short duration. I can’t cite enough examples to really argue that, though.

The American Revolution had far deeper ramifications than did the French one. Also, the American Civil war happened much more recently than did the English one; and when it did happen, thanks to telegraphs and other medium, it was more widely known about.

Edit:
To see how influential the legends have been on the modern, western pedestrian one need only look at the lengths of their wiki articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

mortalterror

11-05-2010, 09:26 PM

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.

See, there I disagree. Tennyson is a great poet, but not on the same level as guys like Tasso and Ariosto. I think you are overstating the importance of Idylls of the King. However, in Arthur's defense, chivalric epic has long been out of fashion, and Tennyson's poems are probably the last really good ones in that style. Whereas Finn McCool gets a reboot in the 18th, and Sigurd gets one in the 19th, Roland hasn't had a hit since probably the sixteenth century. I really do think that one possible component of Arthur's popularity is the relative recentness of his last successful title. Eventually, some other hero will bring out a book and knock Arthur off his pedestal, because people have short memories. For awhile all you heard about from the teen girls was Harry Potter, and now all they care about is Twilight. Same thing with the academics and intelligentsia. These things come in cycles and people get hot, but eventually even the best go out of fashion.

Arthur is a national hero, a sort of founder to the British, the way that Aeneas was to the Romans. When Britain's star was on the ascent so were his legends. Now that Britain and America are in decline, we should see some lessening of his popularity.

One thing, though, something you said...

"I'll admit that I'd heard of Arthur long before I'd heard of Roland, because I used to watch Disney's The Sword in the Stone, not because I'd read any good books about him."

With all due respect--how can you make a fair comparison if you haven't read Arthur? That's like saying The Roling Stones are a better band than The Beatles without ever hearing Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

I think you're being rather unfair to Arthur as a result--you've seen the Disney version? You've never read Mallory's epic, or Gawain's tale, or heard Wagener's incredible opera, or the older Welsh stories?

Not very fair, in my opinion...

1) Did you read The Tain, The Niebelungenlied, The Shahnahma, The Works of Ossian, Orlando Furioso, The Song of Roland, Jerusalem Delivered, The Arabian Nights, Beowulf, the Norse Sagas, Le Morte D'Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Night, Yvain, Lancelot, Perceval, Parzival, Tristan and Isolt, Idylls of the King, The Prose and Verse Eddas, and all the other mythologies before you made your opinion known?

2) I was speaking as one of your 9/10s of Americans, who weren't familiar with literature. When I was a child, long before I read The Song of Roland, I had the Disney Channel and I knew who Arthur was. I still liked Robin Hood better. Now that I am a man, I have read many, though not all of the Arthur texts we are conversing about.

3) When you cite Wagner's operas, which ones are you referencing? Because the Ring Cycle is about Siegfried.

4)Most of the Matter of Britain is not about Arthur at all, and you are giving him credit for Gawain, Lancelot, Percival, Galahad, Tristan, Bors, Kay, Bedivere, Mordred, and everyone associated with him's exploits. This is a poll about the best hero, not the best cycle.

stlukesguild

11-05-2010, 10:34 PM

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.

1. Do you know this for a fact? Are you certain that Roland is not just as well known as Arthur in Italy, France, Spain, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, etc...?

2. The very idea of basing the literary importance of a text or a character upon how well that text or character is known to 9 out of 10 Western readers is irrelevant for the simple fact that 9 out of 10 readers (or more) almost never voluntarily read "serious" literature. As a result, I would presume that for 9 out of 10 Western readers any character who has become part of popular culture, be it the Wizard of Oz, Dirty Harry, Harry Potter, Rambo, Rocky, Snow White, etc... will be more known that Dr. Faustus, Don Quixote, Ophelia, Agamemnon, Oedipus, Elektra, etc... This has nothing whatsoever to do with the literary merits of literary impact of such characters.

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.

Again, no one is trivializing Arthur or the Arthurian legends; we are simply stating that Arthur is quite likely far from being the most important literary character of the middle ages when you consider the body of literature surrounding the alternatives: Rostam and Roland. There is quite simply no Arthurian epic that is a literary masterpiece that begins to approach Tasso's Gerusalemme Liberata and Rinaldo or Ariosto's Orlando Furioso or Boiardo's Orlando Innamorato. As Mortal pointed out there are numerous other literary works that build upon the Roland tales and there is a wealth of music based upon the same that far outstrips that which exists for Arthur, including operas by Monteverdi, Lully, Andre Campra, Handel, Vivaldi, Geminiani, Henry Desmarest, Salieri, Gluck, Haydn, Rossini, Brahms, Dvorak, etc... One can find the same wealth of materials in the visual arts... and as JCamilo has repeatedly pointed out, Roland shows up in Cervantes and other non-English literature, while Tasso and Ariosto were clearly the models for both Spenser's Faerie Queene and Milton's Paradise Lost... both far greater English epics than any Arthurian poem.

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.

You are saying Roland had his day... as if the Arthurian texts have survived better... based upon your knowledge of the English-speaking world... and based on the fact that the Arthurian stories have been more popular with Hollywood. But this has nothing to do with the importance of the various Roland epics to literary history or to the continued importance of the Roland tales in France, Italy, Spain, and other non-Anglo-centric cultures.

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?

What alternatives have survived? Little or nothing of ancient Persia, Arabia, Europe, Asia, etc... has survived. Certainly the Bible rivals any achievement of Greek literature... but I doubt that Moses or Abraham rival Odysseus as a "hero". I'll also admit that I don't know enough of the Indian epics to propose any of these... or to dismiss them.

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.

Again, the literary merit or importance of any text has nothing to do with a popularity contest held among the largely unread masses. I'll venture that far more have read Oliver Twist or Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter than Hamlet or Othello or Dante's Comedia... indeed I'll venture more have heard of Arthur than have heard of Dante... than says nothing about the literary importance of the works.

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...

So popularity is the end measure of literature? By this token we need not even hold a poll for the "greatest hero of all time" for it's clearly Harry Potter.

My point is that a bad adaptation doesn't make the original any less of a masterpiece...

Perhaps not... but a great adaption... an adaption that is a literary masterpiece would seem to say much in favor of the character or legend and once again we come to the simple fact that there are no Arthurian masterpieces to rival Orlando Furioso, Orlando Innamorato, Gerusalemme Liberata, etc...

Lord Macbeth

11-05-2010, 10:40 PM

See, there I disagree. Tennyson is a great poet, but not on the same level as guys like Tasso and Ariosto. I think you are overstating the importance of Idylls of the King. However, in Arthur's defense, chivalric epic has long been out of fashion, and Tennyson's poems are probably the last really good ones in that style. Whereas Finn McCool gets a reboot in the 18th, and Sigurd gets one in the 19th, Roland hasn't had a hit since probably the sixteenth century. I really do think that one possible component of Arthur's popularity is the relative recentness of his last successful title. Eventually, some other hero will bring out a book and knock Arthur off his pedestal, because people have short memories. For awhile all you heard about from the teen girls was Harry Potter, and now all they care about is Twilight. Same thing with the academics and intelligentsia. These things come in cycles and people get hot, but eventually even the best go out of fashion.

Arthur is a national hero, a sort of founder to the British, the way that Aeneas was to the Romans. When Britain's star was on the ascent so were his legends. Now that Britain and America are in decline, we should see some lessening of his popularity.

1) Did you read The Tain, The Niebelungenlied, The Shahnahma, The Works of Ossian, Orlando Furioso, The Song of Roland, Jerusalem Delivered, The Arabian Nights, Beowulf, the Norse Sagas, Le Morte D'Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Night, Yvain, Lancelot, Perceval, Parzival, Tristan and Isolt, Idylls of the King, The Prose and Verse Eddas, and all the other mythologies before you made your opinion known?

2) I was speaking as one of your 9/10s of Americans, who weren't familiar with literature. When I was a child, long before I read The Song of Roland, I had the Disney Channel and I knew who Arthur was. I still liked Robin Hood better. Now that I am a man, I have read many, though not all of the Arthur texts we are conversing about.

3) When you cite Wagner's operas, which ones are you referencing? Because the Ring Cycle is about Siegfried.

4)Most of the Matter of Britain is not about Arthur at all, and you are giving him credit for Gawain, Lancelot, Percival, Galahad, Tristan, Bors, Kay, Bedivere, Mordred, and everyone associated with him's exploits. This is a poll about the best hero, not the best cycle.

First...if you just compared Arthur's Legend to TWILIGHT...really?

Second, I'm not comparing the quality of the poets, but rather the work--and while you may debate whether Tennyson is better or worse than those poets I don't think that can lessen his work...to put it another way, if Babe Ruth and, say, Ike Davis had a Home Run Derby, and by some amazing turn of events Ike won, that doesn't make Ike Davis a better power hitter than the Bambino, but that the Babe is the better power hitter doesn't take away Davis' victory, that THIS particular feat of his was something special.

Third:

I have passed judgment on Beowulf--I have read his story.
I have passed judgment on Arthur--I have read MANY of his stories, from Mallory to Gawain's author to Tennyson, and yes, I'd say about 3/4 of the stories you listed for Arthur, if not more.
I have passed judgment on Roland--I am familiar with him and his poets.

The OTHERS I am not familiar enough with to comment on specifically...and so I haven't, I haven't called the Norse figures out--I DID know of Ragnar and I in fact nominated him for this round, but that didn't work out--and so I haven't given my overriding opinion about them.

I haven't challenged Rostam's standing.

I haven't said a thing about Cu Chulainn.

I have spoken about who I know and art overall--I'm familiar with all of these figures--with the exception of the second-to-last figure, never ehard of him, but 9/10 is decent enough knowledge to speak, I think.

That's FAR different than your passing judgment on Arthur when you HAVEN'T read Mallory or Tennyson or Gawain's author, or heard Wagner's "Tristan and Isolde" or read other pieces of the Vulgate Cycle and so on.

And yes, I DO give SOME credit for other knights to Arthur because, again, they come in later into Arthur's legend, and so without Arthur, for some of them it can be argued they'd never have gotten noteriety or the growth of character they did in the context of Arthur's saga--here I refer to Tristan, Isolde...Gawain was in early on, but he has a sort of mirror figure outside the legend--or would never have existed at all--Lancelot and Bors and the like.

And Cunninglinguist, thanks, that is another factor--DAMN I wish Milton had lived long enough to write a version of Arthur...

stlukesguild

11-05-2010, 11:21 PM

Milton had been thinking about writing an epic on Arthur, but chose the biblical characters - as for sheer influence these guys trumph anyone of the heros listed - as his theme instead and wrote Paradise Lost. Had he not, or had he lived longer, we would have probably had an epic about Arthur sitting in quality next to Dante

Could have, should have, would have, might have... irrelevant. All that matters is what Milton did write... and what he did write was an epic poem in which the characters are based upon the main figures from the Biblical book of Genesis and not upon either the characters of the Arthurian or Roland cycles. If push come to shove, however, we must note that Ariosto's and Tasso's Roland epics were major models for both Spenser's Faerie Queene and Milton's Paradise Lost.

Arthur’s great magnitude of recent influence, with that “Victorian reboot” or whatever it was called, and even looking back at Milton, could make up for its relatively short duration. I can’t cite enough examples to really argue that, though.

That's because you cannot come up with a body of literature, music, and art rooted in the Arthurian legends to rival those rooted in the Roland tales. A slew of second-rate Victorian painters are not about to undermine Veronese, Delacroix, Fragonard, Rubens, Van Dyck, Ingres, Redon, and more...

Of course I still stick with my original choice of Rostam on the basis of the fact that he was the literary hero with the greatest epic composed around him during the time period that we are discussing.

Lord Macbeth

11-05-2010, 11:36 PM

Arthur’s great magnitude of recent influence, with that “Victorian reboot” or whatever it was called, and even looking back at Milton, could make up for its relatively short duration. I can’t cite enough examples to really argue that, though.

That's because you cannot come up with a body of literature, music, and art rooted in the Arthurian legends to rival those rooted in the Roland tales. A slew of second-rate Victorian painters are not about to undermine Veronese, Delacroix, Fragonard, Rubens, Van Dyck, Ingres, Redon, and more...

Howq about Wagner's "Tristan and Isolde?"

I personally loathe Wagner the man, but that opera is a masterpiece, and so influential that not only did T.S. Eliot allude to it in the opening of The Waste Land but there's a whole chord in music called "The Tristan Chord."

Where's Roland on musical representation that can compare with one of the greatest operas ever written?

Unless WAGNER now is "second-rate," as you put it...?

mortalterror

11-06-2010, 12:31 AM

That's FAR different than your passing judgment on Arthur when you HAVEN'T read Mallory or Tennyson or Gawain's author, or heard Wagner's "Tristan and Isolde" or read other pieces of the Vulgate Cycle and so on.

But I HAVE read Gawain's book. I HAVE read Chrétien de Troyes. I've read roughly half of Tennyson's book, and part of Mallory's. I've listened to Wagner, and I'm not crazy about any of them.

And yes, I DO give SOME credit for other knights to Arthur because, again, they come in later into Arthur's legend, and so without Arthur, for some of them it can be argued they'd never have gotten noteriety or the growth of character they did in the context of Arthur's saga--here I refer to Tristan, Isolde...Gawain was in early on, but he has a sort of mirror figure outside the legend--or would never have existed at all--Lancelot and Bors and the like.

You yourself have said that if you included the other knights of the Round Table the votes might fall evenly between them, and none would get a lot of votes.

Petrarch's Love

11-06-2010, 01:21 AM

stlukesguild

11-06-2010, 01:32 AM

I'll grant you Wagner's Parsifal, which was clearly structured upon Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parsival which itself was rooted in Chrétien de Troyes’s Perceval, the Story of the Grail. Tristan und Isolde, on the other hand, was rooted in Gottfried von Strassburg's Tristan... which was rooted in the Cornish legend of Tristan and Iseult which predates the Arthurian legends and influences the Arthur/Guenivere narrative. Only much later does Tristan become absorbed into the Arthurian legends. Wagner's opera has nothing to do with this.

Even so, music built upon the Roland narrative still far outweigh those of the Arthurian legends:

George Frederic Handel- Rinaldo
George Frederic handel- Orlando
George Frederic Handel- Alcina
Gioachino Rossini- Tancredi
Jean-Baptiste Lully- Armide
Jean-Baptiste Lully- Roland
Gioachino Rossini- Armida
Claudio Monteverdi- Combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda (Madrigals bk. 8)
André Campra- Tancrède
Antonio Vivaldi- Armida al campo d'Egitto
Antonio Vivaldi- Orlando Furioso
Henry Desmarest- Renaud, ou la Suite d'Armide
Francesco Geminiani- The Enchanted Forest
Christoph Willibald Gluck- Armide
Joseph Haydn- Armida
Joseph Haydn- Orlando Paladino
Antonio Salieri- Armida
Josef Mysliveček- Armida
Massanet- Esclarmonde

he Roland cycle was simply the single most popular source for opera during the Baroque era, when opera was establishing itself across Europe. The cycle was so popular for any number of reasons. The great epics by Ariosto, Boiardo, and Tasso provided one of the greatest sources of fantastic tales in Italian... the native language of the new art form. Then the tales were laden with much magic, exotic settings around the world, wizards and heroes, damsels in distress, and of course the wonderful love stories: Orlando rescuing Angelica and falling in love with her... and yet she is in love with an African prince which drives him into madness; Bradamante and Ruggero... from who the d'Este family were supposedly descended; and then there's Rinaldo and Armide/Armida.

The Armida tale was one of the most popular themes for opera... perhaps THE most popular... during the Baroque era, and was set by many of the leading French and Italian operatic composers (Lully, Desmarest, Campra, Vivaldi, Geminiani). Later, it was employed by the most important operatic composer of the classical era after Mozart, Christoph Willibald Gluck, as well as many of Mozart's nearest rivals (Salieri, Haydn, Mysliveček).

Wilde woman

11-06-2010, 01:58 AM

Wow, this is a heated debate. I haven't seen this much talk on medieval anything here for a while. That's exciting.

Again, I think it comes down to everyone's definition of "greatest" hero. If we're talking literary and cultural influence, Roland wins hands-down over Arthur. (C'mon, I know this, even as someone who specifically studies Arthur.) I think everyone would agree that the Arthurian texts with the greatest literary merits (post-Galfridian) are the Mabinogion, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Malory, Chretien's romances, and the Vulgate cycle. But as great as these texts are (and I would throw in the Alliterative Morte Arthur), I don't think anyone would say that, as a corpus, they can compete with the heavyweights of Roland's corpus - the Chanson, Ariosto, and Tasso.

I also have to agree with stlukesguild that this time period wasn't a particularly fruitful literary one for Britain, so it may be hard to go with a distinctly English (and say what you will about Welsh or French analogues...Arthur is ENGLISH) hero as the greatest. When we get into the later medieval periods, that will begin changing a bit and the quality of English literature arguably rises.

And, yes, the Roland story enjoys more popular success than Arthur's for a very long time. It's only with the Victorians that interest in Arthurian stuff begins again. And I would argue that Arthur is only more well-known in America than Roland because we're essentially an English-speaking country. Arthur's popularity now is not due the merit of the literature surrounding him now; it is due to pop culture. But why are we arguing on the grounds of popular interest? As someone already mentioned, your typical American reads crap. I wonder which hero is more popular amongst scholars: Roland or Arthur? Thoughts?

But even knowing Roland's wider influence, I voted for Arthur because his story touches me emotionally in a way that Roland's does not. At least in Malory's version, Arthur is not only a heroic, but a tragic figure. He is a flawed human being in such a way that brings destroys his marriage, devastates his closest friends, and simultaneously brings about the fall of his kingdom. The classic romance of an unknown man rising to kingship, of building a fellowship and an ideal kingdom, of fighting evil, of love and betrayal, and such a tragic inevitable death...this story resonates with me much more than Roland's struggle against Saracens or even Orlando's unrequited love for Angelica. I admittedly get bored with Malory's treatment of the other knights...but the crux of that story with Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, and Mordred gets me every time.

Also: everyone keeps citing the influence of Roland in Spenser, but let's not forget Arthur's influence as well. Arthur himself provides the frame story for the entire text. Thus ends my little plug for Arthur in the Faerie Queen.

mortalterror

11-06-2010, 02:01 AM

StLuke, I've just been listening to the King Arthur opera with libretto by Dryden and music by Purcell, and it's pretty good.

mortalterror

11-06-2010, 02:14 AM

But even knowing Roland's wider influence, I voted for Arthur because his story touches me emotionally in a way that Roland's does not. At least in Malory's version, Arthur is not only a heroic, but a tragic figure. He is a flawed human being in such a way that brings destroys his marriage, devastates his closest friends, and simultaneously brings about the fall of his kingdom. The classic romance of an unknown man rising to kingship, of building a fellowship and an ideal kingdom, of fighting evil, of love and betrayal, and such a tragic inevitable death...this story resonates with me much more than Roland's struggle against Saracens or even Orlando's unrequited love for Angelica. I admittedly get bored with Malory's treatment of the other knights...but the crux of that story with Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, and Mordred gets me every time.

If it's pathos, tragedy, and some human psychological element you desire from your heroes, I don't know where you'd do better than Rostam. His illegitimate son seeks him out when he comes of age, and Rostam accidentally slays him on the battlefield.

While clamour raged Suhrab said thus to Rustam :
" The Turkmans ' case is altered since my day
Is done. Use all thine influence that the Shah
May not attack them. They approached Iran
Through trust in me, and I encouraged them.
How could I tell, famous paladin !
That I should perish by my father's hand ?
Let them depart unscathed, and treat them kindly.
I had a warrior in yonder hold
Caught by my lasso. Him I often asked
To point thee out : mine eyes looked ever for thee.
He told me all but this. His place is void.
His words o'er-cast my day, and I despaired.
See who he is and let him not be harmed.
I marked in thee the tokens that my mother
Described but trusted not mine eyes. The stars
Decreed that I should perish by thy hand.
I came like lightning and like wind I go.
In heaven I may look on thee with joy."
Then Rustam choked, his heart was full of fire,
His eyes of tears. He mounted quick as dust
And came with lamentations to the host
In grievous consternation at his deed.

Indeed, this is the episode Matthew Arnold focuses his retelling on in the Victorian era. What I find most fascinating is that right up until the end of his life Sohrab mirrors the early adventures of Theseus going to meet his father Aegeus. Aegeus tries to kill Theseus as well, but at the last moment recognizes some tokens he'd left with Theseus' mother. Sohrab wears similar tokens under his armor, which he shows to Rostam as he lays dying.

Wilde woman

11-06-2010, 02:25 AM

I've only had a chance to skim the exchange, but I am so dedicating at least one discussion of my next Medieval or epic themed course to a debate about the best hero if it results in this kind of impassioned discussion. :D

Great minds think alike! This thread has inspired me to work in something similar for my course next year.

Now, a couple of nitpicky things which aren't directly related to our debate:

It could be argued that the concept behind the Roudn Table in the literature--that no one sits at the head and thus all are equals--is one of theearliest demonstrations of a democratic mindset in literature. The knights that are associated with Arthur's kingdom vary, as some, such as Tristan and to an extent possibly Gawain, have texts and a life outside the Arthurian canon.

Okay, this is one of those cultural icon things that pisses me off a little. Arthur is associated with the Round Table in pop culture, but quite frankly in the literature, it's not that big a deal. Round Table = democracy is bullcrap. ARTHUR is KING. There is no democracy! There's justice, yes, but no democracy. Yes, Arthur may heed Merlin a little, and perhaps listen to his knights, but let's not fool ourselves: Camelot is a monarchy with a divinely appointed king. Arthur dictates and the knights either listen to him or they don't. End of story. The only time the Round Table actually takes on any character in medieval Arthurian stuff is in Joseph of Arimathea, and there it's more analogous to the Last Supper table. It's only when Arthurian stories travel to the U.S. (surprise! a democratic nation!) that this Round Table stuff actually begins making any sort of political statement.

but I'm going for Egill Skallagrímsson. True, he's an anti-hero, but a character of tremendous depth and expression. He's capable of extreme brutality (theft, blackmail, adultery, murder, rape, black magic, infanticide and so forth), but also of intense human emotion, which comes across so powerfully in his incredible poetry.

Totally off-topic, but your description reminds me of Grettir in the eponymous Icelandic saga. Any relation?

In David Crystal's The Stories of English, the historian/author notes that the entire body of Old English writing to 1150 consists of just over 3000 texts (most being brief, dry record keeping or historical documentation) and results in some 3 million words. Charles Dickens, on the other hand, accounts for 4 million+ alone.

Wow, incredible statistic!! Does Crystal give any stats on the corpus of Middle English literature?

(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!)

Yes. Agreed. Ethan Hawk was terrible as Hamlet.

JCamilo

11-06-2010, 03:24 AM

Lord Macbeth

11-06-2010, 04:22 AM

Okay, this is one of those cultural icon things that pisses me off a little. Arthur is associated with the Round Table in pop culture, but quite frankly in the literature, it's not that big a deal. Round Table = democracy is bullcrap. ARTHUR is KING. There is no democracy!
Yes. Agreed. Ethan Hawk was terrible as Hamlet.

-I didn't mean the Round Table motif was akin to a Senate or an elected body or any great democratic BODY...just that the concept of a table and court where no one is at the head--even though the head is obiously Arthur in practicality, it's more the idea that's at play--is something more democratic, or at least demonstrative of an idea of equality than, say, a the stricter hierarchies present in other Medevial fiction (perhaps in Roland? I don't know...I don't think that story has any great show of at least an ideal of equality.)

In Arthur's legend, you have the King, and then you have all the Knights--and that's the court at Camelot. Merlin's there, and Guinevere, but really the true "court" is made up of Arthur's knights, and the Round table shows that they're all on even footing status-wise, the only ioneqiuality beiong an "earned" one through deeds, ie, Gawain and Lancelot are likely going to hold more sway than, say Sir-Not-Appearing-In-This-Debate. ;)

(Actually, and I feel a bit odd saying this because I definitely don't want to give the impression Arthur's a pop icon and not a real literary force, but the Crew of the USS Enterprise always sort of reminded me of the Tound Table, in a good way--you'd have all seven main characters plus whoever else sit down, and yes, Kirk's captain, what he says in the end goes, but like Arthur, he generally weights what the others have to say first and THEN makes his decision, and the weight a person's arguments carried were measured by their accomplishments, real merit. Spock's opinion will matter more than Sulu's he's more experienced and has done more, hence his higher rank, and as much as Chekov is my favorite character, he'll usually get trumped by Scotty or bones because they both have the age and experience to back up their position...by the same token, when Chekov has a REALLY good idea, despite his age, the crew goes with it. It's similar in Arthur, you have equals in that court, but you have Lancelot, Gawain, and Percivale as sort of "First among equals" amongs the knights, and then Bors and Bedivere had some sway, and then someone who's a jerk like Sir Kay or some inexperienced nobody-knight will usually have a say, just not as valid due to a lack of merit, a lack of experience. It's a show that MERIT is what matters, NOT race or blood...Spock didn't get his position due to an inheritance, and Lancelot didn't come to be as respected in Arthur's eyes because he was a "racially-superior" person. Arthur, then, demonstrates that he values leader immensely...I wonder, does Roland or the others have such a system, showing that merit matters? After all, as much as I love it and will readily call it the greatest play and quite probably the greatest work of literature ever, Hamlet has a "court" that runs a great deal off of inheritance...that's so much a part of Hamlet's problem, Claudius inherits the throne with the death of King Hamlet and with Prince Hamlet away...so even centuries after Medevial times there still aren't many examples of merit-over-bloodlines in the West, and Arthur as a ruler is somewhat unique in his time for that."

-Glad someone agrees Ethan Hawk's a terrible Hamlet! :)

Lord Macbeth

11-06-2010, 04:25 AM

Lokasenna

11-06-2010, 06:02 AM

Totally off-topic, but your description reminds me of Grettir in the eponymous Icelandic saga. Any relation?

It seems very likely that the author of Grettis saga had read Egils saga - there are sufficient similarities to suggest than one is drawing from the other, and we know Grettis saga to be a late saga.

As for familial relations, off the top of my head I'm not sure, but if they are then it's certainly not close. Though interestingly, the opeing chapter of Fóstbrœðra saga depicts an episode, utterly unrelated to the rest of the narrative, where Grettir is about to be lynched by an angry mob, but is saved Þorbjörg Ólafsdóttir, who is the grand-daughter of Egill. The nobility of her ancestry is sufficient to allow her to command the crowd, and she seems to see something in Grettir that she likes - quite possibly a younger version of her grandfather.

JCamilo

11-06-2010, 11:04 AM

Matter of FRANCE...

Charlemegne vs. Arthur...

It's the age-old battle, England vs. France! :D

OK, that just cracked me up, in a good way, that's just perfect...after all this time, even English and French STORIES can't help but coming into conflict...!

Well, there is more behind the French anti-USA position that can dream our vain philosophy...

But the both Matters (as the Alexander the great matter) was not really about one against the other. It is more than likely, Charles was a real life (idealized) monarch model for all those stories, simple because his own historical vallue. Just like Alexander was a model, or Marcus Aurelius another kind of model.
Not saying Artur do not have his own traits (a specific trait of arturian circle is the bleding of celtic traditions, which may reflect the way Bede was instructed to convert england, while Charles is clearly - even if pagan motifs will be present - a Christian king against a given enemy)but you can easily see some of Charles on him. The Round Table is a good example, Charles had his 12 peers, Roland is only special in sense Lancelot is. But they all had their own series of adventures, special traits, magical items, etc. There is a clear leader (Charles), but the peers are as respectful and friendly towards each other as the Knights. Of course, the circle idea is as Pascal could see, a great idea. But it just changed the symbolism of the same thing, the idea was there, not a competition, after all Troyes was a french dude and those arturian bards working where the carollian bards are would not be silly to unplease the crowd by not mixing what it is good among them (the other was is true also, if I am not mistaken, some Arturian characters sometimes appeared on Charles - as a idea, already suggested before, it is thinking a Marvel and DC: X-men and Spider sell more comics, are more popular, etc. But Batman and Superman still have the best works and are the original model.)

B. Laumness

11-06-2010, 11:09 AM

I didn't mean the Round Table motif was akin to a Senate or an elected body or any great democratic BODY...just that the concept of a table and court where no one is at the head--even though the head is obiously Arthur in practicality, it's more the idea that's at play--is something more democratic, or at least demonstrative of an idea of equality than, say, a the stricter hierarchies present in other Medevial fiction (perhaps in Roland? I don't know...I don't think that story has any great show of at least an ideal of equality.)

In Arthur's legend, you have the King, and then you have all the Knights--and that's the court at Camelot. Merlin's there, and Guinevere, but really the true "court" is made up of Arthur's knights, and the Round table shows that they're all on even footing status-wise, the only ioneqiuality beiong an "earned" one through deeds, ie, Gawain and Lancelot are likely going to hold more sway than, say Sir-Not-Appearing-In-This-Debate.

That's feudalism and aristocracy.

Matter of FRANCE...

Charlemegne vs. Arthur...

It's the age-old battle, England vs. France!

OK, that just cracked me up, in a good way, that's just perfect...after all this time, even English and French STORIES can't help but coming into conflict...!

The matter of Britain ("matière de Bretagne") is not purely English, it contains French works. It's a reference to the Great Britain, but also to the French region called Bretagne. The celtic world is not only English. When I read Chrétien de Troyes, I never imagined that Arthur was an English symbol.

stlukesguild

11-06-2010, 11:39 AM

StLuke, I've just been listening to the King Arthur opera with libretto by Dryden and music by Purcell, and it's pretty good.

I haven't heard that one... although I quite like Purcell. I do have Dido and Aeneas and The Faerie Queene (based on Shakespeare's Midsummer's Night Dream and not Spenser) as well as a lot of his choral works.

Petrarch's Love

11-06-2010, 11:48 AM

I have no idea how the idea of round table still persists. It shows the attempt to create this version of past with this bias. Round table was not about democracy and was not even original to arturian circle. Charles and his 12 peers had the same concept. The last super also.
But funny is this "earliest example of democracy on literature", 1000 years after Plato. Mwah. Soon it will be said it was the earliest feminist literature example, just because XX century arturian themes are centered on women.

Of course the old myths continually mutate. One has to love Kevin Costner's Robin Hood Prince of Thieves with Morgan Freeman as the token black man supporting the new multicultural take on history.:out:

Great minds think alike! This thread has inspired me to work in something similar for my course next year.

I know, this thread is highly inspirational. At another place and time you must tell me about your course for next year. Are they giving you your own stand-alone already? Exciting!

Okay, this is one of those cultural icon things that pisses me off a little. Arthur is associated with the Round Table in pop culture, but quite frankly in the literature, it's not that big a deal. Round Table = democracy is bullcrap. ARTHUR is KING. There is no democracy! There's justice, yes, but no democracy. Yes, Arthur may heed Merlin a little, and perhaps listen to his knights, but let's not fool ourselves: Camelot is a monarchy with a divinely appointed king. Arthur dictates and the knights either listen to him or they don't. End of story. The only time the Round Table actually takes on any character in medieval Arthurian stuff is in Joseph of Arimathea, and there it's more analogous to the Last Supper table. It's only when Arthurian stories travel to the U.S. (surprise! a democratic nation!) that this Round Table stuff actually begins making any sort of political statement.

While you are, of course, entirely right that the round table=democracy thing entered the narrative about the same time Arthurian legend hit Hollywood, it is interesting, as I imagine you already know, but others on the thread may not, that the round table was something that real kings thought to replicate in the late Medieval/early Renaissance period. We still have the archeological evidence of the Round Table building planned by Edward III (the synopsis of this book--http://www.boydellandbrewer.com/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=8398--gives the gist, and the book itself is a fun read for the historically interested if you can find it in a library). We also have some evidence of Round Table themed tournaments and feasts from the late middle ages on, and we still have the round table Henry VIII had painted (the table itself likely predates Henry VIII's era) for such an event, which still hangs at Winchester Castle. As the picture below makes clear, Henry VIII certainly had no questions as to who sat at the head of the round table.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e386/LeonardoD/gh-roundtable-1-500px.jpg

JCamilo

11-06-2010, 03:52 PM

The round table is real of course. And we can read it as democracy, but it is more close to chivalirty than democracy. They are not equals, except under those codes. In all of those stories the idea of the Monarch persists strongly than the idea of the Nation itself (which is fundamental for the idea of society or democracy). After all Camelot is Artur himself, he dies and Camelot dies (Which is the feudal reality - the lack of a single suited sucessor killed many kingdoms and the lack of son is a mark of Arthur). It is either inspired by the celtic campings (round figures) or a development of the Last Supper (the christian theme is present on both kings) idea...

And Yes, I still expect and Adaption of Trojan War with a Japanese Girl as Helen for cultural inclusion...

Cunninglinguist

11-06-2010, 04:48 PM

Could have, should have, would have, might have... irrelevant. All that matters is what Milton did write... and what he did write was an epic poem in which the characters are based upon the main figures from the Biblical book of Genesis and not upon either the characters of the Arthurian or Roland cycles. If push come to shove, however, we must note that Ariosto's and Tasso's Roland epics were major models for both Spenser's Faerie Queene and Milton's Paradise Lost.

I do think that my point carries relevance – of course, it does not carry any relevance if we are talking about how influential these heroes tales have been on literature. But it is very dubious whether or not that should be the sole criteria for judgment.

I think we have to re-analyze the question at hand here: who is the greatest? And greatest in what respect? My intuition would have me believe that greatest probably does not mean most influential in the literary realm; but still in what respect are we judging the hero and how do we go about quantifying their greatness in this respect? I am not so sure, but I think we should stick to this question; if it falls down whom we would prefer to emulate then I would rather be Dirty Harry than a man who signed his soul away, or a man who laid siege to windmills, or Hamlet’s wife, a narcissist… I definitely would not want to be Oedipus or Electra. If we’re going to judge them on a purely historical basis then Arthur would probably take the cake even with all the ambiguity around him, considering that we only have one recorded mentioning of Roland, the man. Furthermore I do find it very hard to compare Roland and Arthur on a purely subjective basis; Roland was a warrior, Arthur more of a King. Roland and Lancelot or Charlemagne and Arthur would probably be more appropriate to compare.

The fact that Milton contemplated writing about Arthur and his buddies speaks to how Arthur’s character and his story stood out to Milton, which, I think, safely adds him to the score of Arthur defendants, endorsers, aficionados, or whatever have you. Of course, however, if he had been acquainted well with Rostam he might have favored him instead – but one cannot say. And further the fact that Arthur’s story is so tenacious with the public today further speaks to a strength in his character; whether that strength is commendable or not is another story.
I do not mean to use this as definitive evidence that Arthur’s story was better than the rest; the question still stands: what does better/greater mean? When an artist utilizes a story as an allegory or simply alludes to it he chooses the story because it offers him what he thinks to be the richest mode to express what he wants to express. In some instances Arthur’s would be the better option, in others it is Roland.

To brainstorm: what is it now that makes Arthur’s legend so popular? Aside from Tennyson and the Victorian stir, I suspect the story before the 1800’s was partly overshadowed by the Bible. Once again, look at who Milton chose to write about. Also, as has been pointed out, the stories mutate, e.g. Americanized versions of the Legend of Arthur making the Round Table seem more democratic than it hitherto had been made. What do you guys think?

For me, I am on the same page as Wilde Woman. I judge greatness on a more subjective basis; Arthur's story resonates with my heart.

Of course the old myths continually mutate. One has to love Kevin Costner's Robin Hood Prince of Thieves with Morgan Freeman as the token black man supporting the new multicultural take on history.

I watched about half of that today. Morgan Freeman does not belong in that movie.

Lokasenna

11-06-2010, 04:55 PM

Of course the old myths continually mutate. One has to love Kevin Costner's Robin Hood Prince of Thieves with Morgan Freeman as the token black man supporting the new multicultural take on history.:out:

Two words: Alan Rickman

The only reason to watch that film is for Rickman's gloriously over-the-top scenery-chewing Sheriff. It's an awful film, but Rickman makes it totally worth a watch.

Delta40

11-06-2010, 05:43 PM

Two words: Alan Rickman

The only reason to watch that film is for Rickman's gloriously over-the-top scenery-chewing Sheriff. It's an awful film, but Rickman makes it totally worth a watch.

I totally agree! one of Morgan's worse films and the best Costner could ever get

What about Harold II?

JCamilo

11-06-2010, 06:12 PM

Mutatis-Mutandis

11-06-2010, 06:40 PM

What should I read about Roland? Sounds interesting, just from reading through this thread.

mortalterror

11-06-2010, 06:50 PM

The fact that Milton contemplated writing about Arthur and his buddies speaks to how Arthur’s character and his story stood out to Milton, which, I think, safely adds him to the score of Arthur defendants, endorsers, aficionados, or whatever have you.

Doesn't the fact that he didn't compose the poem say even more? He mentions thinking about writing an epic when he's still a young man. He somehow lives another 35 years without writing a line of this poem he was supposedly devoted to.

Milton's intention to write an epic poem on Arthur has two sources 1) from his Latin poem Mansus and 2) from his Latin poem Epitaphium Damonis. The first, after some obeisance to the poet Tasso and idle mention of Druid heroes contains such matter:

If ever I recall in song my native kings, and Arthur setting wars in motion even beneath the earth; if ever I tell of the high-souled heroes in the virtuous friendship of the invincible Table; and — let the spirit be present to aid me — if ever I break the Saxon phalanxes with British war; then may my lot grant me such a friend, one who knows so well how to honor the sons of Phoebus.
This is some proof of Milton's intentions, however the second source is telling:

I would tell of Dardanian ships along the Rutupian Sea, and of the ancient realm of Imogen, Pandrasus' daughter, of the leaders Brennus and Arviragus, and old Belinus, and of colonists in Armorica under British laws; then I would tell of Igraine pregnant with Arthur by a fatal fraud, of the seeming face and counterfeit arms of Gorlois, Merlin's artifice.
Here, Arthur is the last of a number of British kings mentioned by Milton. In fact, his tale was to start with Brutus the Trojan, legendary founder of Britain. So it becomes clear that of this planned epic, Arthur was not the theme or main character, but only a part of a greater whole. No doubt, with age his ambition turned into his prose History of Britain.

That the whole Earth was inhabited before the Flood, and to the
utmost point of habitable Ground, from those effectual Words of God in
the Creation, may be more than conjectur'd. Hence that this Island also
had her Dwellers, her Affairs, and perhaps her Stories, even in that old
World those many hundred years, with much reason we may infer. After
the Flood, and the dispersing of Nations, as they journey'd leisurely
from the East, Gomer the eldest Son of Japhet, and his Offspring, as by
Authorities, Arguments, and Affinity of divers Names is generally
believ'd, were the first that peopled all these West and Northern
Climes. But they of our own Writers, who thought they had done nothing,
unless with all Circumstance they tell us when, and who first set foot
upon this Island, presume to name out of fabulous and counterfeit
Authors a certain Samothes or Dis, a fourth or sixth Son of Japhet, whom
they make, about 200 Years after the Flood, to have planted with
Colonies, first the Continent of Celtica or Gaul, and next this Island;
thence to have named it Samothea, to have reign'd here, and after him
lineally four Kings, Magus, Saron, Druis, and Bardus. But the forg'd
Berosus, whom only they have to cite, no where mentions that either he,
or any of those whom they bring, did ever pass into Britain, or send
their People hither. So that this outlandish Figment may easily excuse
our not allowing it the room here so much as of a British Fable.
That which follows, perhaps as wide from Truth, though seeming
less impertinent, is, that these Samotheans under the Reign of Bardus
were subdu'd by Albion a Giant, Son of Neptune; who call'd the Island
after his own Name, and ruled it 44 Years. Till at length passing over
into Gaul, in aid of his Brother Lestrygon, against whom Hercules was
hasting out of Spain into Italy, he was there slain in fight, and
Bergion also his Brother.
Sure enough we are, that Britain hath been anciently term'd
Albion, both by the Greeks and Romans. And Mela, the Geographer, makes
mention of a stony shore in Languedoc, where by report such a Battel was
fought. The rest, as his giving name to the Isle, or ever landing here,
depends altogether upon late Surmises. But too absurd, and too
unconscionably gross is that fond Invention that wafted hither the fifty
Daughters of a strange Dioclesian King of Syria; brought in, doubtless,
by some illiterate Pretender to something mistaken in the common
poetical Story of Danaus King of Argos, while his Vanity, not pleas'd
with the obscure beginning which truest Antiquity affords the Nation,
labour'd to contrive us a Pedigree, as he thought, more noble. These
Daughters by appointment of Danaus on the Marriage-night having murder'd
all their Husbands, except Linceus, whom his Wife's Loyalty sav'd, were
by him, at the suit of his Wife their Sister, not put to death, but
turn'd out to Sea in a Ship unmann'd; of which whole Sex they had
incur'd the hate: and as the Tale goes, were driven on this Island.
Where the Inhabitants, none but Devils, as some write, or as others, a
lawless Crew left here by Albion, without Head or Governor, both
entertain'd them, and had Issue by them a second Breed of Giants, who
tyranniz'd the Isle, till Brutus came.
See how he starts the history with Genesis and biblical allusions, then moves on to Greek and Roman myths. Given the rest of his artistic output: Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, Samson Agonistes, Comus, Lycidas, it's pretty easy to see that he was more enamored of antiquity than of the middle ages.

One reason why I think Milton never wrote an epic on Arthur is his anti-royalist political stance. He wrote The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, Defense of the People of England, and The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth. In some of his writings he actually condones regicide. He would have to be a hypocrite to write an epic poem about a King after that.

JCamilo

11-06-2010, 07:30 PM

What should I read about Roland? Sounds interesting, just from reading through this thread.

Ariosto's Orlando Furioso is one of the greatest works ever written, but frankly the majority of works mentioned here, not just from Roland, are good or at least of historical curiosity.

Jive One

11-06-2010, 10:46 PM

Voted Scheherazade partly because of her perseverence and cleverness, and partly because I love the 1001 Nights.

Lord Macbeth

11-09-2010, 12:27 AM

So with ten more votes than anyone else and the majority to boot, it looks like King Arthur has won the Dark Ages round.

So, who to put in line for the next one, the High Middle Ages era?

So far we have:

Sir Lancelot
Sir Gawain
Sir Tristan
Robin Hood

So who else? Also, do you perhaps think some of these names should be allowed to run again, as they sort of ebbed and flowed in the Middle Ages, stories were made early and then re-emerged later in altered versions...that and Arthur killed everyone here and we have some decent candidates here...?

Six more, and then we may begin the third round, "High Middle Ages," in search of The Greatest Era of All-Time.

B. Laumness

11-09-2010, 01:54 PM

I think that the knights of the Round Table are not less interesting than Arthur and that one of them, Perceval, gave matter to one of the best novels of chivalry. In Perceval or Le Conte du Graal (The Story of the Grail), Arthur is an old king whose authority is less bright, he’s not the main character, although his court is always attractive. At the beginning, Perceval is a young man who lives in the forest, close to his mother, naïve and unpolished, not at all a hero. This Bildungsroman tells how he becomes a knight, a great one, and then a lover capable of courtly love and at last a man who doesn’t forget his religious duty. The quest of the Grail is just an episode and, in the novel, it’s not explicitly associated with the Christian theme, the blood of Jesus Christ… In fact, the grail appears like a dish, but the scene is strange and you feel a mystic power. There are many poetic and marvelous passages, which stroke my imagination, especially around the Fisher King, how Perceval meets him, how he discovers the castle… The reader who expects battles and slaughters may be surprised. Actually, Chrétien de Troyes seems bored with the endless fights, he even cuts them short. What interests him foremost is the composition, the structure of his work, as he said it himself. You know Perceval is unfinished, but it’s not really a problem, on the contrary it’s part of the quest and it easily allows continuations. Two stories are told by interlacing: the adventure of Perceval and the adventure of Gawain, apparently distinct, but both are in relation and not only with the quest of the Grail. Perceval improves himself, whereas Gawain seems stagnate and even get lost in the troubles and the disappointments. Structurally, each episode of one is in a meaningful relation with an episode of the other. You can also notice similarities in the names of the characters that each meets on his own. Finally, Perceval is a more subtle and complex hero, he’s not a knight without a great goal, he’s a new kind of hero in the world of chivalry: the one who is brave, strong and courteous, but also who is in search of a moral perfection.

Note that this roman inspires many books in the Middle Ages, especially Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzifal, and more recently the opera by Wagner, T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land and Julien Gracq’s Le Roi Pêcheur.

Even if you don’t want to include religious figures and historical persons, it would seem to me ridiculous not to propose El Cid, Saladin and Joan of Arc for this period. You could also add Siegfried of The Nibelungen and Song Jiang, one of the heroes of the Chinese novel Water Margin, and you have ten names.

Lord Macbeth

11-09-2010, 06:13 PM

How would I have Joan of Arc...when she's a historical person...?

6 more for the High Middle Ages Round, any nominations?

B. Laumness

11-09-2010, 07:38 PM

Instead of rejecting the idea that a person may be seen like a character, you could ask if the distinctions between history and fiction are not less strict when we speak about heroes, if in this case history and fiction are not often melted in the popular imagination, and if an historical person can not be perceived closer to a literary creation than the rest of the mortals.

Have you seen my nominations? Have you ever heard of The Nibelungen, for instance? Do you think Lancelot and Gawain are more important than Perceval in terms of literary merit and of cultural influence?

JCamilo

11-09-2010, 07:46 PM

Artur, Roland and El Cid are historical too (or close to it).

I would point Sirgurd is the pool, Laumness, and the basic idea is that most of the pool from latter should be repeated now, as the end of dark ages marked the period when most of those characters are registered on paper.

Lord Macbeth

11-10-2010, 12:29 AM

Oh, didn't realize that was a nomination, sorry, adding Percival...

And the thing is we KNOW Joan of Arc was real, Arthur's buth a legendary character, so it's a bit off...I agree it's a fuzzy line, but it just seems odd; I suppose maybe if we can't fill the spots with other heroes, but it seems like there should be plenty of Medevial heroes left...?

Sir Lancelot
Sir Gawain
Sir Tristan
Sir Percival
Robin Hood

WOW...it's the Grail Quest all over again, who's the most worthy knight?! :)

mortalterror

11-10-2010, 01:36 AM

Lord Macbeth

11-10-2010, 03:40 AM

Alright, I'm up for some diversity, and a good chance to learn about a few of these whom I'm not familiar with...

Sir Lancelot
Sir Gawain
Sir Tristan
Sir Percival
Robin Hood
Song Jiang
Dante (Character)

Who are the others, to clarify their position? (And to clarify a point, Dante made a character out of himself in his work, hence the reason I'm more inclined to let Dante in and not, say, Joan of Arc...I let in Dante-the-character, not Dante-the-poet, if that makes sense...but Joan wasn't made a character of so much as her exploits retold.

B. Laumness

11-10-2010, 03:44 AM

I would point Sirgurd is the pool, Laumness, and the basic idea is that most of the pool from latter should be repeated now, as the end of dark ages marked the period when most of those characters are registered on paper.

My bad. I've always read and heard Siegfried, not Sigurd.

JBI

11-10-2010, 03:45 AM

In your first poll 8 of the 9 options were Greek, now you already have 5 of 10 British heroes. I'd throw in Song Jiang as B. Laumness suggests along with Zhuge Liang. Then add Virgil or Dante from the Divine Comedy. Maybe Njal from Njal's saga.

Zhuge Liang and Song Jiang do not necessarily count. Song Jiang is a 12th century personality, and we have Huaben, storyteller books, but the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, as a novel, is a later creation.

B. Laumness

11-10-2010, 03:57 AM

Joan wasn't made a character of so much as her exploits retold.

Perhaps these works are not well known, and all are not masterpieces, but Joan of Arc had a cultural influence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_Joan_of_Arc

Of course, most are not written in the Middle Ages, but the same goes for Robin Hood and El Cid.

mortalterror

11-10-2010, 04:17 AM

Zhuge Liang and Song Jiang do not necessarily count. Song Jiang is a 12th century personality, and we have Huaben, storyteller books, but the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, as a novel, is a later creation.

Aren't both Water Margin and Romance of the Three Kingdoms composed around 1350 from existing legends? Journey to the West and Dream of the Red Chamber are both later stories, but the first two fit well into the same time frame as The Divine Comedy, The Decameron, and The Canterbury Tales.

And for the Middle East, Majnun is popular around that time thanks to Nezami's epic Layla and Majnun. It's sort of an Arabic Romeo and Juliet. Incidentally, this is supposed to be the source tale for Layla that Eric Clapton sings about. Just like Roland, Majnun loses his mind over love.

JBI

11-10-2010, 04:35 AM

Aren't both Water Margin and Romance of the Three Kingdoms composed around 1350 from existing legends? Journey to the West and Dream of the Red Chamber are both later stories, but the first two fit well into the same time frame as The Divine Comedy, The Decameron, and The Canterbury Tales.

Oh, I meant for this topic of "The Dark Ages 476-1100." Either way, they represent different cultures. The medieval times were far earlier in China, I would call the Song more advanced than the European Renaissance, technological history seems to agree to an extent, so it is hard, in terms of print culture, to weigh the two. Dante came out in a manuscript time period, as did Chaucer, whereas print was already taking off in China, and by the next 100 years after composition would be equivalent to print up until the dawn of mass-production.

That being said, what is heroic? I would disagree with the idea of applying such rules over China, as the concept of hero is far different, the term "hero" in this sense is used as a filler for lack of a better term, but Song Jiang, as most of the 108, are anti-heroic, and outcasts, and the ending of the book is not, when read in a Classical Chinese light, praising heroism, but rather discussing the failure of being against a corrupt government when, at the same time, you are patriotic. In the end Song Jiang kills himself, and Li Kui (knowing Li Kui will try to avenge him) rather than go against the government, symbolizing the anti-heroic mode, that gestures to the biggest flaw of nationalism - namely that no matter how corrupt and beaten one's country is, and how mistreated, there is still that pull that gives one a sense of identity, still that desire to not go against ones country.

That does not make them heroic, it makes them patriotic, which is a difference. Zhuge Liang too is not heroic, merely (in the Mao edition mind you) an embodiment of Confucian values, fulfilling the "loyal minister" role that is so essential to Confucian thought. As a hero, historically the closest one seems to get to is Cao Cao, or perhaps Zhangfei and Guan Yu, but even that is stretching the idea of hero.

Simply put, the hero is tied to a different tradition - one must mark the distinction between hero and protagonist.

mortalterror

11-10-2010, 04:45 AM

That does not make them heroic, it makes them patriotic, which is a difference. Zhuge Liang too is not heroic, merely (in the Mao edition mind you) an embodiment of Confucian values, fulfilling the "loyal minister" role that is so essential to Confucian thought. As a hero, historically the closest one seems to get to is Cao Cao, or perhaps Zhangfei and Guan Yu, but even that is stretching the idea of hero.

Simply put, the hero is tied to a different tradition - one must mark the distinction between hero and protagonist.

So you are saying that they have no heroes in Chinese myth or legend akin to Hercules, Rostam, Achilles, Beowulf, or Lancelot? They don't have any super-powered warriors, clever tricksters, or gods?

JBI

11-10-2010, 04:54 AM

So you are saying that they have no heroes in Chinese myth or legend akin to Hercules, Rostam, Achilles, Beowulf, or Lancelot? They don't have any super-powered warriors, clever tricksters, or gods?

Not equivalents in these cases. But in the case of equivalents, there are, which emerged during in the Tang dynasty in the 传奇 tradition, which saw the early precedents of the Wuxia genre, but even that isn't exact. The concept of hero is defined differently, we use the word as a translation which is not exact.
The patriotic "loyal minister" seems the more important type, in which case, the most significant will be the poet-general Yue Fei.

JCamilo

11-10-2010, 09:39 AM

You are being too technical, JBI, Scherazade is listed, she is not the Hero as Brave warrior who goes to slap some nasty guys. Oedipus would be like that. If Hero is a protagonists able to risk himself in name of something bigger than himself, it is not possible that you can not apply the term to some chinese boys. But then, it should not be restrict to historical characters or those in chinese novels. I recall a legend of a dude who embraced the sun to convice it to stop some big draught (do not recall the name) for example, that is easily heroic.

If I recall well, Dante is not part of this pool. you limited this "high dark ages" to 1300 and the Comedy is about a decade latter. Which is a shame, because is the main character of the main poem of the end of dark ages and we will have to see something like 6,7 english heroes as if they are that representative (while 4 of them are even used already to justiy the Arturian power).

As the historical goes: Joana D'Arc was invented in the narratives as much as anyone else. There is no Angels, gods, etc and she talked with them in her legends. Dante of Comedy (and he should be there) is himself, nothing added, nothing removed. The "historical" or "no religious" is a strong bias (Artur is or may be based on a historical king, and when you say no Moses, Mahomad, Jesus, etc - you just mean: Islam, jews and christians are real religions when it should be obvious, they are all equally non-existent or valid. Included the Zeus dude). And you still forget El Cid, he lived under the time limit and was quickly part of oral tradition, but frankly, at that time islamic culture was dominating even great regions of europe, so the heroes are theirs.

Wilde woman

11-10-2010, 12:41 PM

mortalterror

11-10-2010, 08:26 PM

Lord Macbeth

11-10-2010, 09:08 PM

I'm not sure about having so many Arthurian knights up there. Yes, they're all great heroes, but shouldn't you leave room for heroes from non-British texts?

I nominate Grettir from the Icelandic Grettir's saga, which was dates from about 1325.

You could also look at Celtic heroes, like Bran from the Irish "Voyage of Bran", though I'm now realizing that his story dates a bit too early for this time period (8th-10th century). I'd also suggest Pwyll, the Welsh hero, from the first 4 books of the Mabinogion.

The thing about the Arthurian Knights is...well, while even I agree they're maybe over-represented here...

Who can we kick out as not having merit?

Lancelot's the most well known knight in all of literature, arguably (and I'd certainly argue that...he has plenty of heroic actions, and then the bonus elements of also being a flawed hero with his sin and a lover with one of the more iconic love affairs of all time between he and Guinevere.)

Gawain appears in more Arthurian legends than any other knight and has probably one of the best Medevial poems to his credit, and maybe the best "on-a-journey" poem (not counting The Divine Comedy, of course, that's in a leaguge of it's own the same way we have Elizabethan Theatre and THEN we have Shakespeare's Works) and is perhaps the most complex and literarily-rich knights of the lot.

Tristan has arguably (and I, again, WOULD argue it) THE most iconic and importance romance tale with Isolde, and quite probably one of the greatest of all time, influencing AT LEAST not one, not two, but THREE OTHER great works in the Lancelot/Guinevere affair, Romeo and Juliet, and Wagner's opera.

Percival is, after Galahad--who really is more of a yardstick for the other knights than a really fleshed-out character in some ways--the most important knight in the most iconic story of Arthur's legend, the Grail Quest.

Who can we kick out THERE? :/

So far we have (knights included, for the moment):

Sir Lancelot
Sir Gawain
Sir Tristan
Sir Percival
Robin Hood
Song Jiang
Dante (Character)
Grettir

Wikipedia places the Arabic love story too early, and there seems to be an ongoing dispute about the rest...

JCamilo

11-10-2010, 10:07 PM

The thing about the Arthurian Knights is...well, while even I agree they're maybe over-represented here...

Who can we kick out as not having merit?

Kick all and leave Tristan, all others, as net as they are, are too related to Artur. Tristan story is almost a solo story on his own.

Lancelot's the most well known knight in all of literature, arguably (and I'd certainly argue that...he has plenty of heroic actions, and then the bonus elements of also being a flawed hero with his sin and a lover with one of the more iconic love affairs of all time between he and Guinevere.)

Gawain appears in more Arthurian legends than any other knight and has probably one of the best Medevial poems to his credit, and maybe the best "on-a-journey" poem (not counting The Divine Comedy, of course, that's in a leaguge of it's own the same way we have Elizabethan Theatre and THEN we have Shakespeare's Works) and is perhaps the most complex and literarily-rich knights of the lot.

You know who is in the same league of the Comedy? Orlando furioso. Gawain has not one of the best medieval poems to his credit (The Green Knight is not as exceptional as he tell, Tam Lin is more interesting). And Gawain (or artur) is not as representative to medieval poetry as Shakespeare was the elibathean theatre.

Tristan has arguably (and I, again, WOULD argue it) THE most iconic and importance romance tale with Isolde, and quite probably one of the greatest of all time, influencing AT LEAST not one, not two, but THREE OTHER great works in the Lancelot/Guinevere affair, Romeo and Juliet, and Wagner's opera.

An addult story about a knight who is in a love triangle has NOTHING to do with Romeo and Juliet. The tale is as much older as Tristan and probally had roots in Ovid's telling of Priam and Trisbe who had almost all elements of Romeo and Juliet.

Percival is, after Galahad--who really is more of a yardstick for the other knights than a really fleshed-out character in some ways--the most important knight in the most iconic story of Arthur's legend, the Grail Quest.

Who can we kick out THERE? :/

The quest of the grail is already part of Artur, Lance's love triangle too, Even the green Knight main element is the sacrifice to save arthur, Tristan story is not. So, keep jsut him. It is more than needed for england. And Robin Hood? How influential is he? No big works, nothing. And I repeat, you are ignoring El Cid and your own timeline, isnt the timeline now until 1300?

Wikipedia places the Arabic love story too early, and there seems to be an ongoing dispute about the rest...

Just like Lance, Gallahad, Tristan are more early too.

mortalterror

11-10-2010, 10:39 PM

Wikipedia places the Arabic love story too early, and there seems to be an ongoing dispute about the rest...

All of your stories but Robin Hood have origins earlier than your 1100-1300s bracket. The major version of Layla and Majnun is the Nezami poem which is right in that era. JCamillo is right. We've already covered this ground with Arthur. Kick every knight but Tristan, who's tale isn't so wound up with the Arthur mythos.

JCamilo

11-10-2010, 11:16 PM

As far as impossible love goes, Abelard and Heloise were from this period of time. Their real and legendary love story is almost as popular as any other fordidden love with the spice of Christian Moralism and Abelard own influence as philosopher.

And of course, a true iconographic knight is from this time (a bit earlier, but most works raised latter): St.George.

stlukesguild

11-11-2010, 12:15 AM

Beside the Layla and Munjun story there is Khosrow and Shirin also told in Nezami Ganjavi (Persian: نظامی گنجو ) or Nizami's masterpiece, the Khamseh. Another major Persian masterwork of this period concerns the lovers, Vis and Rāmin whose story is told by the poet, Asad Gorgani, whose work will be a source of inspiration on Nizami.

Lord Macbeth

11-11-2010, 12:15 AM

Alright, as much as I love Arthur--Homer, Shakespeare, Arthurian Legend, and then Sherlock Holmes, my four favorites--I can see your point about those knights being part of Arthur's Legend, and since I DID invoke the strength of the legend in my argument for Arthur, I suppose it's only logical (and fair) that it'd extend here and kncok them out.

But may I ask that Sir Gawain still stay? His poem IS one of the best examples of poetry in that age, and is easily one of the most iconic and important Medevial knight tales, it really outlines a lot of what being a knight meant.

We had four, can we settle on two, Gawain and Tristan?

And then add in Roland (why not, we need folks and his story does extend into this era as well) and that Arabic hero, giving us:

Sir Gawain
Sir Tristan
Robin Hood
Song Jiang
Dante (Character, WAS in 1200s, Dante the poet died 1321, so just in)
Grettir
Majnun
Roland

And then two more...?

JCamilo

11-11-2010, 12:30 AM

Dante wrote (Or started) in 1308. After 1300.

Monogotari, Momotaru, i dunno, of those japanese folk-tales must be around this time.
And there is a african epic of importance around this time too...

B. Laumness

11-11-2010, 04:35 AM

JBI

11-11-2010, 10:54 AM

I was trying to think what major Chinese works are written for this time period, and it occurred to me that Romance of the Western Chamber came out then. Has anybody read it and found any characters which might fit into the heroic category? The first couple of pages were pretty sweet, but I haven't read the whole thing.

From what I can piece together from what JBI has said and what I've read online, the Wuxia genre is basically just like modern Hong Kong martial arts films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, or the films of Jet Li, and Chow Yun Fat. So in a word... awesome. It also includes stuff that we'd be familiar with from Japanese mangas such as Berserk, Ruroni Kenshin, Ninja Scroll, Lone Wolf and Cub, Blade of the Immortal, Dragonball, or Naruto. They are sort of wandering blade stories, like Kurosawa's Yojimbo, or Zatoichi, or maybe the modern equivalent would be westerns.

Depends. The Hong Kong films are based to an extent, but not quite. The original genre is more about duty and honor, and discovering what is "good" and "right" than kicking butt.

The novels are slightly different (for the most part), in that they generally do not sell well to Western readers as they are not exactly (for the most part) adventure novels of the sort. Of course, some authors did mix in Western elements, such as Gu Long from Taiwan who was obsessed with plagiarizing from Western Cinema and fiction.

JCamilo

11-11-2010, 12:18 PM

You can't put such limits: 1100-1300. Just say "High Middle Ages" without these dates. You won't make believe that Renaissance began everywhere in Europe at the beginning of the 14th century. In the 15th century, many European countries are still considered as medieval on several aspects. The 19th didn't "begin" in 1800, but rather in 1789 or in 1815; the 20th in 1914 and ends in 1989-1990 maybe.

Obviously he can put limits, just like you did. But well, all limits are just arbitrary and inherently wrong. Nothing has a real starting date.

B. Laumness

11-11-2010, 02:21 PM

That could be true 10000 years ago, not when History is an essential part of our human condition. One of the roles of the historian is to fix limits, and one of the roles of the scholar in literature is to classify the works and the authors, using amongst many tools the historical knowledge. Obviously, Gutenberg is the start of nothing. Of course, Christophe Colomb is the start of nothing. It's absolutely certain that the French Revolution is the start of nothing. And no doubt World War I is the start of nothing.

JCamilo

11-11-2010, 03:25 PM

All four example started nothing. And History duty is not impose limits at all. History is a continual process and that is how it is studied today.

JBI

11-11-2010, 08:06 PM

All four example started nothing. And History duty is not impose limits at all. History is a continual process and that is how it is studied today.

Meh, it is studied with the same rules as any discourse. The more you read into it, the less clear it becomes. Discourse moves not with truth, but with acceptance as truth. Truth is never the issue in history, nor is fact, argument is the basis of it, and acceptance is the determinative of worth.

That being said, we must shuffle through the notions we have of event, and consequence. Events are perhaps factually based (if not understood with in our own frame, for instance, within the calendar we currently use, with the mindset we currently have) and the narrative is spun out around it, in no more objective a way than any other discourse. Burckhardt was right until he was deemed wrong and false, as any other number of historians, who have newer historians spin new narratives around the same events.

Wilde woman

11-11-2010, 08:09 PM

You can't put such limits: 1100-1300. Just say "High Middle Ages" without these dates. You won't make believe that Renaissance began everywhere in Europe at the beginning of the 14th century. In the 15th century, many European countries are still considered as medieval on several aspects.

For the record, I agree. Are you going to have another poll with "Late Middle Ages"? If not, I think your end date is off by about 200 years. I think the medieval period ends roughly around 1500.

Dante (Character, WAS in 1200s, Dante the poet died 1321, so just in)

No, I'm pretty sure L'Inferno starts in the year 1300, putting his journey in the 14th century. Again, if you'll just extend your dates, you won't have a technical problem here.

JCamilo

11-11-2010, 09:23 PM

Meh, it is studied with the same rules as any discourse. The more you read into it, the less clear it becomes. Discourse moves not with truth, but with acceptance as truth. Truth is never the issue in history, nor is fact, argument is the basis of it, and acceptance is the determinative of worth.

That being said, we must shuffle through the notions we have of event, and consequence. Events are perhaps factually based (if not understood with in our own frame, for instance, within the calendar we currently use, with the mindset we currently have) and the narrative is spun out around it, in no more objective a way than any other discourse. Burckhardt was right until he was deemed wrong and false, as any other number of historians, who have newer historians spin new narratives around the same events.

Chronology is just arbitrary, take the 4 examples given: The press was not invented by Guttemberg and his invention would be probally one of those events who would wait in obscurity, if that momment italian humanism had not extressed a big importance on literature and increased the demands for texts, outside the religious copist tradition. Columb was just one more of the several seafarers, the age of discovery was happening long ago, probally when spain expelled the invaders from their territory. As the french revolution is just a momment on the elightment and their movement towards the social shift. Voltaire and Rousseau are dead already, so the french revolution was already on montion. And the World War I was just one more chapter of europeans imperilism, which was already on montion when England took from Portugual and Spain the sea control. So nothing really started, Lord Macbeth limit on 1300 is as arbitrary as the dates B.Laumness suggested, they are all wrong and at least, discovering the Comedy as close of those limits is not so absurd.

Alexander III

11-11-2010, 09:31 PM

The problem I think with including Dante in this poll, is that it is virtually impossible to distinguish between Dante character and Dante the man. Unlike for example Arthur, it wasn't a myth created from a ancient historic figure, it was an autobiographical character in a mythical world, get my gist ? And if we do decide to include autobiographical characters as such, surely St.Augustine and Rousseau, both from their own Confessions, should have and be included.

Also Macbeth, I understand it must be frustrating and annoying having everyone complain about the pole and what changes, in fact I think some are being over demanding, however you have a strong bias in said poles, due to narrow literature you know of I presume, and you must make amends if you want to make a pole which isn't bordering on the ridiculous.

Lord Macbeth

11-12-2010, 12:48 AM

Alright, no Dante...but we NEED to just get a few more in here for this next round, let's just decide on a few more...

B. Laumness

11-12-2010, 05:05 AM

It is understood that an event doesn’t happen ex nihilo, that it has deep causes and that the historian has to analyze these causes in order to understand the facts. The French Revolution would not happen without Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, without Enlightenment. What are the causes of Enlightenment? Erasmus, Montaigne, Bacon, Descartes, humanism and study of the man in a secular way, Renaissance and reading of the texts in a scientific way, etc. What are the causes of Renaissance? What are the causes of Antiquity? What are the causes of manhood? What are the causes of life? What are the causes of the Big Bang? A theory saying that everything has extremely deep causes and that nothing has a singularity, that nothing can be seen like new, like an event, that all is in all, that there is no beginning nor end, is a theory that is absurd. I don’t come ex nihilo, I have parents who have parents themselves, my birthday is part of the process of the humankind, but my birthday is a fact and a start, and I’m an individual different from all the others, although I’m in the human society, and this society is not formed by an indistinct mass of ants, but is built upon individuals who bring something new at each birth, who bring a new hope. With your theory, there is no change, no hope; History never happens, because it never begins. With your theory, the study of literature would be completely worthless, since there would be no difference between the authors and there would be no literature at all. Though, the study of literature consists in identifying the particularities of a work, the style of a writer. And the historian has to write a narrative, indeed, with a beginning like every narrative, even if this beginning is always in medias res, and this narrative must be plausible and convincing for the modern reader (some say “objective and unbiased”). Is it universally true? You know “true” with the word “universally”, when we speak about history, is an oxymoron.

JCamilo

11-12-2010, 09:23 AM

Wait there, I talk about a process of continual change and "under my theory" there would be no change? How is that possible? And how the study of literature would be worthless if there is no difference between authors? How this is even remotelly suggested by anything I said? And from where you get that a historian does not have to write a narrative? I just said all limits he impose to himself are arbitrary as the limit Lord MacBeth posted, not that they do not impose limits and that is History is not about those limits, those limits are just a biased point of view for the attempt to sumarize a process.
And frankly, just take the example mentioned, Dante. There is as much sense to put him in the same bag as the heroic narratives of knights as not placing him together. He is something else. Yet, Ariosto makes no sense without them. And Ariosto is posterior to Dante and yet, we can find enough reasons to talk about Ariosto and Dante all together. It is obvious that the time frame will be flawed, but funny enough, it happens with Dante, which have enough medieval traits to be medieval and enough humanist traits to belong to italian humanism. You can argue with the british/greek bias of his options, but the dates? There is no real solution for this.

B. Laumness

11-12-2010, 02:48 PM

The problem is that there is a lack of logic and precision in this poll. Do we take in consideration the era in which the hero is supposed to have realized his deeds or the time at which the book has been written? Arthur is supposed to have lived in the Dark Ages, but his first remarkable appearance in literature is in the 12th century. The battle of Roncesvalles happened in 778, the Song of Roland has been sung in the 11th century and Ariosto wrote his masterpiece in the 16th century. Nibelungenlied is inspired by legends of the early Middle Ages, and the text is written in the 13th century, but Siegfried (or Sigurd) is mentioned in this pool on the Dark Ages. For 1100-1300, our young fellow nominates Roland again and knights of the Round Table! Why? What is the logic? That’s confusing. I propose to refer to the date of creation/publication of the book and, possibly, if the hero has posterity, to see the others works in which he figures (Roland for example). Otherwise, if we don’t have that criterion, let’s say Ivanhoe is a hero of the Medieval Times, or William of Baskerville.

For that, we have to agree on what we call Medieval Times or Renaissance, etc. It may be useful to listen to the scholars and the historians on this point. Anyone who has some basics in history knows that Renaissance began in Italy in the 14th and spread in Europe in the next two centuries. Is Dante a medieval author or a man of Renaissance? He is attached to a Christian vision of the world, his interest in theology is fundamental, he cares about the salvation, actually his Divine Comedy condenses the medieval philosophy. But his poem is also one of the first great texts in Italian, it even codifies this popular language, it is not written in the sacred language of the Church, in Latin. One of the characteristics of Renaissance is the will of the well-read persons to create or promote a national language as decent and great as Latin and Greek. Reading the works of the Ancients, they feel admiration, but they also want to rival them. Dante has this knowledge of Antiquity: is it enough to say he is a man of Renaissance? Some persons of the Middle Ages were not ignorant at all, contrary to what we often imagine. In fact, there were very erudite ones, who had an encyclopedic knowledge, and we still find this feature in Rabelais amongst others. Rabelais uses his knowledge not for his salvation, but for the apology of the humankind, for the terrestrial pleasures of the mind and of the body. Perhaps it is a difference with Dante and with a medieval Weltanschauung. But in Gargantua and Pantagruel, we still find epic deeds, battles and slaughters… What is the most important feature in his work? Probably the teaching of a humanist and the verbal fantasy, signs that the times have changed, that there are social, cultural and linguistic changes. I agree, JCamilo, these changes are long process, but the evolution is obvious in the 16th, and that’s the reason why we affirm that Rabelais is to include in Renaissance, even if that is a biased choice, but our perception of history is made by biased choices that we approve and share. It’s not absurd to say that Dante is part of the Middle Ages. But, as Alexander III pointed, his presence as a character is maybe problematic.

About this next pool, I repeat that it would be better to call it “High Middle Ages” or “Late Middle Ages”, without these dates 1100-1300. And I would like to see Perceval and not Gawain.