Discussion on Arthur and his knights

[sithkittie]

I flipped through the search and didn't see anything, so I figured I'd give starting a topic a go. :wave: My friends just look at me like I'm speaking another language when I try to chat about Arthur's knights, so... anybody else?

Who's your favorite? (and why) What's your favorite account or book (old or modern)? Recommendations and absolute no-gos? Random other rabbit trails?

My favorite is Tristram (Tristan?), mostly because he's Launcelot, meaning epic in my book, only really flawed and makes me laugh where as Launcelot mostly annoys me. I haven't read too many different books, and I'd say Malory's version is my favorite, but I had to stop reading it after the first volume because I was waking up with nightmares about being trapped in armor almost every night. I enjoyed the first volume though! I really liked the Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell in junior high. Those, I think, are what got me into Arthurian lit. I need to find my old copies though, because I tried to reread them in e-book format, and the formatting was so bad that the whole first bit just bugged me too much to read. I should read Mists of Avalon again too. I read it about the same time, but I really don't remember it at all.


:D

[Alexander III]

La Morte D'Arthur has always intrigued me, have you read it ? what are your thoughts on it, how does it compare to literature produced during the same time ?

[Seasider]

One of the best non scholarly works about Arthur is The Sword in the Stone by TH White. It's about Arthur's education and preparation to be King. Originally written for young people, it still has something to give any reader.

[Transmodernism]

Launcelot mostly annoys me.
:D

Here, here!

Hate Launcelot. Hate, hate, hate, hate Launcelot.

Here's what I don't get: how is it romantic to fall in love with a woman who has been married to your king for decades and then run off with her and bring upon the kingdom a giant war that ends in the ruination of all. If she really loved Launcelot and not Arthur, she should've married Lance to begin with.

I might've mentioned this, but I hate Sir Launcelot.

[Wilde woman]

If you're interested in Arthur, you must check out Chretien's romances and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. But if you don't have particular interest in the medieval period, you may find the other Arthurian stuff (of which there is LOT) boring. For more modern stuff, try Tennyson's Idylls of the King, Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court, and T.H. White's The Once and Future King. I highly highly recommend the last one, which is one of my all time favorite books. White might actually change your mind about Lancelot, since he gives the most moving portrayal of him. And he gives an absolutely hilarious account of Pellinore.


My favorite is Tristram (Tristan?), mostly because he's Launcelot, meaning epic in my book, only really flawed and makes me laugh where as Launcelot mostly annoys me. I haven't read too many different books, and I'd say Malory's version is my favorite, but I had to stop reading it after the first volume because I was waking up with nightmares about being trapped in armor almost every night.

Ugh! Really? I think Tristan is my second least favorite of my Arthurian knights, after Galahad. His entire episode with Isolde is to be blamed on the love potion, which just deprives him of his free will. He and Isolde don't really love each; they're just under the effect of this magical potion. He'd be a much more interesting figure if his entire affair were not the result of this potion. I find him more interesting in his similarities to Classical heroes, which I don't think has been explored quite enough.

I actually find some of the more villainous knights really fascinating, mostly because our modern sensibilities attract us to flawed heroes. Mordred and Kay, especially. Mordred been deeply wronged by Arthur, and through no fault of his own, has been case into the role of villain. It's interesting to think what might have happened had he not been such a pawn of his mother. There have been some sympathetic revisions made on the Mordred figure in modern Arthurian adaptations. And Kay...well...I just want to know what happened to him to make him such an ***.

But of the "good" knights, I think I like Gawain the most. Of all the Arthurian knights, he's probably the original. Even the Celtic stories have versions of him. And he inhabits the all-important position of Arthur's nephew, and in the medieval comitatus the whole uncle-nephew dynamic assumed more importance even than father-son and husband-wife relationships. He's also supposedly the ladies' man of all the knights. :brow: Plus, I think Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is the most elegant Arthurian poem ever written.

I'm currently writing a paper on Chretien's Yvain, Knight of the Lion. So I guess my current interest is in him, and his problems of identity.

Oh, if you want a really hilarious medieval Arthurian romance, you MUST check out Perceval of Gallois. This is the only Perceval text I've ever read WITHOUT a Grail story. It's more of a family romance and Bildungsroman, and Perceval is quite the dolt.

[Ecurb]

Here, here!

Hate Launcelot. Hate, hate, hate, hate Launcelot.

Here's what I don't get: how is it romantic to fall in love with a woman who has been married to your king for decades and then run off with her and bring upon the kingdom a giant war that ends in the ruination of all. If she really loved Launcelot and not Arthur, she should've married Lance to begin with.

I might've mentioned this, but I hate Sir Launcelot.

I don't think you understand Lancelot. It's easy to dislike Lancelot if you've seen movies starring (for example) Richard Gere in which Lancelot and Gueneviere stare moon-eyed at each other. In Mallory's account, Lancelot is the "ill-made knight". In other words, he's ugly. He accepts his ugliness and transfers his (possibly sexual) energy into becoming the perfect knight and warrior.

One knightly ideal is to have a perfect love for some lady. In order to be a perfect, knightly love, there must be no lust involved, no hope of personal reward. Such chivalric love is ideal in part BECAUSE it is so selfless. And whom better to favor with such a love than one's queen (whom, by the way, Lancelot saves countless times)?

Lancelot comes close to attaining such perfection. But flying too close to the sun (as Icarus discovered) is dangerous. Perfection, even for Lancelot is unattainable, and ideal, disinterested love can become a temptation -- as it does for Lancelot. Of course the near-perfect admiration and love with which Lancelot reveres Gueneviere is also a temptation for her - as it would be for any woman. The burning intensity of Lancelot's almost perfect love for his queen is too much for him to handle, and leads him to the betrayal of his king and friend. It's a great story, about how the closer we come to perfection, the more dreadful our fall.

[Transmodernism]

I don't think you understand Lancelot. It's easy to dislike Lancelot if you've seen movies starring (for example) Richard Gere in which Lancelot and Gueneviere stare moon-eyed at each other. In Mallory's account, Lancelot is the "ill-made knight". In other words, he's ugly. He accepts his ugliness and transfers his (possibly sexual) energy into becoming the perfect knight and warrior.

One knightly ideal is to have a perfect love for some lady. In order to be a perfect, knightly love, there must be no lust involved, no hope of personal reward. Such chivalric love is ideal in part BECAUSE it is so selfless. And whom better to favor with such a love than one's queen (whom, by the way, Lancelot saves countless times)?

Lancelot comes close to attaining such perfection. But flying too close to the sun (as Icarus discovered) is dangerous. Perfection, even for Lancelot is unattainable, and ideal, disinterested love can become a temptation -- as it does for Lancelot. Of course the near-perfect admiration and love with which Lancelot reveres Gueneviere is also a temptation for her - as it would be for any woman. The burning intensity of Lancelot's almost perfect love for his queen is too much for him to handle, and leads him to the betrayal of his king and friend. It's a great story, about how the closer we come to perfection, the more dreadful our fall.

Fair enough.

[sithkittie]

Oh happy discussion!!! /geek moment

I only got through half of Le Morte D'Arthur.. I really need to finish it, but those dreams were actually quite terrifying. Maybe next month. The only other literature I've read of the time, what, 15th century?, is Paradise Lost which doesn't really compare because of the style and content. What I really want to do is make charts of who's who and who did what because I had trouble keeping some of the more minor names straight. I basically picked out the ones that caught my attention, Tristram, Launcelot, Kay, and Gawain. I remember other stories, but I can't remember who the knights were in them. :(

I love Connecticut Yankee!! It's on my year's reading list.


His entire episode with Isolde is to be blamed on the love potion, which just deprives him of his free will. He and Isolde don't really love each; they're just under the effect of this magical potion. He'd be a much more interesting figure if his entire affair were not the result of this potion

That's just it. That's why I love him. He's as strong as Launcelot, he can fight off an army in his birthday suit, and yet the amount of fail around him is just so enormous. I like the fact that he doesn't meet the "standards" for Arthur's knights, and yet he could take any of them on, including Arthur's best. His thing with Isolde.. I mostly just waited until the ends of each stint when he would end up running around naked for a while. The contrast between that and the piousness of the other knights, aside from making me laugh out loud in public, really stood out for me.

Ecurb - I hadn't thought of it that way. That's actually pretty romantic in some aspects. Who was it who added the story of Launcelot and Gueniviere?

Gawain! Wasn't Gawain in Le Morte D'Arthur the one who kept messing up? Isn't he the one who killed the knight who surrendered as well as his lady? In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight he's portrayed as almost the perfect knight. That caught me off guard. Randomly, he's my favorite in the current Merlin series on BBC.


And Kay...well...I just want to know what happened to him to make him such an ***.

No kidding!

Does anybody know if there's a list out there of all the knights and where they appear? (What stories and by whom type of thing?)

[OrphanPip]

La Morte D'Arthur has always intrigued me, have you read it ? what are your thoughts on it, how does it compare to literature produced during the same time ?

I've only read the last three books, out of Malorey's original 8, and I found it readable if not incredibly brilliant. The Arthurian legends are such important parts of English speaking culture that I think it's hard for people coming from that culture not to appreciate what is the most popular account of the Arthurian legends.

As to in comparison to other prose work from around that period. I find Malorey's style fairly good and tolerable. Much more direct than Sidney's painful prose romance. Typical of the period, sentences tend to run on and on, sometimes for several lines, just adding subordinate clauses over and over; occasionally semi-colons will be used just to stretch it out longer, much like this, in a fashion that is very much different from the more standard grammar of 18th and 19th century English prose. It reminds me a lot of reading the KJV Bible, there's a lot of "wherefores" and "it came to pass" around in there. I would recommend a version with modernized spelling (the one on Project Guttenberg is modernized), for ease of reading.

[sithkittie]

Typical of the period, sentences tend to run on and on, sometimes for several lines, just adding subordinate clauses over and over; occasionally semi-colons will be used just to stretch it out longer, much like this, in a fashion that is very much different from the more standard grammar of 18th and 19th century English prose.

:smilielol5: Indeed.

I found it a bit dry and repetitive, not to mention predictable, but it's forgivable. I did find myself nearly using old words in conversation a few times while reading it. The KJV is a good comparison.

[Wilde woman]

Does anybody know if there's a list out there of all the knights and where they appear? (What stories and by whom type of thing?)

If you want some place better than wikipedia to go to, here's my site for all things Arthurian:

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/cphome.stm

It's my university's project...I'm excited; I think they're going to let me start working on it next year! :cornut:


I like the fact that he doesn't meet the "standards" for Arthur's knights, and yet he could take any of them on, including Arthur's best.

What do you mean he doesn't meet the standards for Arthur's knights?


The contrast between that and the piousness of the other knights, aside from making me laugh out loud in public, really stood out for me.

There are some great comedy moments in Arthurian lit. Anything Dinadan does is great. I seem to remember a moment in Malory when he convinces Lancelot to cross-dress, as a joke. :D


Who was it who added the story of Launcelot and Gueniviere?

What do you mean who added it? Malory simply compiled all the stories; it's unclear who actually wrote any of the stories. But Lancelot was a French invention, who first appeared in Chretien de Troyes' unfinished romance, Lancelot, or the Knight of the Cart, in the late 12th century. It's unclear where he got the idea for the affair from, though. His romance focuses on the abduction of Guinevere by Meleagaunt, and Lancelot's response to it...though the whole abduction of Guinevere by an "M" knight had long predated Chretien's version.

Interesting fact: There's lots of speculation (still) that Chretien failed to finish the poem because he HATED the idea of Lancelot committing adultery. According to some scholars, he only included it because his patroness LOVED stories of courtly love, in which the lovers are often adulterous. Imagine that! One of the greatest love stories of all time might never have been written, if not for a romance-loving woman!!

So...is this BBC Merlin series any good? I've been curious, but all the reviews I've read haven't been that great.

[sithkittie]

Awesome! That looks beyond fun to work on. I'll bookmark it.

By standards for the knights, I mean piousness, not sleeping with your uncle's wife, not breaking your lover's heart by marrying someone else, not completely ignoring your wife. It just seems like, and again using Launcelot as the "ideal," Arthur's knights are up on a pedestal, one for being good fighters, but secondly for following honor codes and ideals of courtly love.

I think I must have read just far enough into volume two to read that part, because I definitely recall Launcelot in drag at some point.

Yeah, I'd read a bit about how Malory compiled the stories. What I meant was some parts of the Arthurian legend are older than others. Correct me if I'm wrong (my memory's not always the best with details), the legend started in England, went through France practically down toward Italy, and then came back to England, right? I thought it was the French who invented Launcelot. Is that story you mentioned translated into English by any chance?

The BBC Merlin is ... well it has plot holes you could drive a semi through and mixes 15th century castles with crusades armor... actually the military technology is one giant mishmash of what looks cool... and Morgana wears high heels and machine crocheted sweaters... but aside from those (and other) inconsistencies, I love it. I can forgive it's faults, partly because of the repeated use of the word "prat" in reference to Arthur, but mostly because there are epic sword fights, dragons, magic, Arthur, his knights (in strange orders), and lots of humor. It's a good mix for me, and watching it an episode or two at a time, I don't notice the plot inconsistencies so much. Actually I only noticed a few of them my first watch-through. I noticed a lot more when my friend and I had a marathon.

[kasie]

....So...is this BBC Merlin series any good? I've been curious, but all the reviews I've read haven't been that great.

It's absolute tosh! Very watchable, highly enjoyable but just don't expect to recognise anything remotely Arthurian about it - only the names have been retained. It's a bit like Troy - you'll waste an awful lot of time trying to fit the story you know to what you're watching. Forget it, just sit back and enjoy the (ahem) handsome young men and the action - feel free to hiss Morgana whenever she appears.

[Wilde woman]

By standards for the knights, I mean piousness, not sleeping with your uncle's wife, not breaking your lover's heart by marrying someone else, not completely ignoring your wife. It just seems like, and again using Launcelot as the "ideal," Arthur's knights are up on a pedestal, one for being good fighters, but secondly for following honor codes and ideals of courtly love.

I dunno. Tristan is frankly a blank slate to me. Nothing he does is really under his control, so it's hard to try to apply morality to his story. If you love Tristan, you should read Denis de Rougement's Love in the Western World. It's a really fascinating argument about the origins of the Tristan story and the various types of love in conflict in the story.


What I meant was some parts of the Arthurian legend are older than others. Correct me if I'm wrong (my memory's not always the best with details), the legend started in England, went through France practically down toward Italy, and then came back to England, right?

Yes, roughly. Italy is not that big for Arthurian stuff. Germany has more. But England and France are usually the Arthurian hot spots. And, yes, there are definitely some Arthurian stories which are older than others. For example, Guinevere and Gawain (and his family) have been around forever, even in the really old Welsh Arthurian poems, of which we only have fragments. But basically, any of the Continental stuff would be derived from insular Arthurian material that moved into Europe, most with the troubadours of English royalty who would journey with their patrons onto the Continent. So any of the French knights would be newer inventions than the insular ones.

I believe Tristan is not Arthurian in origin. His was one of those satellite stories that got sucked into the Arthurian fold.


I thought it was the French who invented Launcelot. Is that story you mentioned translated into English by any chance?

Chretien de Troyes is French! Troyes is a town in northern France. And, yes, all his Arthurian romances have been translated into English.

And now, I've got to get back to my Yvain paper, which I'm SO CLOSE to finishing. Gah, I hate the end of the semester.

[sithkittie]

Chretien de Troyes is French!


Ahah, sorry, inflection didn't come across on the forum. That was a "right, though so, good to know" statement.

And yes, I'm procrastinating on my two finals (for the same class due the same day, seriously??) that I have left. God love the internet for that. Good luck on your paper!


feel free to hiss Morgana whenever she appears

I really, really hate Morgana. I don't even bother trying to match the story with the ones I know. Definitely a show to just sit back and enjoy for what it is. :D There are some "Ehehehe!! Yes!!!" moments when the stories line up though, which is a bit of extra fun.

Off topic: Yes! I managed to figure out how to quote with names now! /is a little slow sometimes

[taintedlove]

I usually only lurk here, but I saw this thread and wanted to join in the discussion -- I absolutely love the Arthurian legends! Of the major Arthurian works, I have read Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur, Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon, and am currently about halfway through T.H. White's The Once and Future King (and really, really loving it). I also read some smaller accounts of the legends in junior high when I was first introduced to them in my English class....I think one was called The Sword and the Circle (author was Sutcliff, I think), and the other was something along the lines of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, though I don't remember the author's name.

Although I haven't yet finished The Once and Future King, I have a feeling it's going to take it's spot as my absolute favorite account. I love how White really focuses on the relationships between the characters and allows us to get to know them (and the setting) through descriptions that are detailed, but not overbearing. The Mists of Avalon is also one of my favorite books, and retells the legend with unique insight into the characters of the women of the legend, especially Morgaine(/Morgana/Morgan le Fay/whatever you want to call her). I really, really love the mystical, spiritual aspect of it, as I'm a huge fan of fantasy. I would recommend any of the retellings I've listed above, though, they're all great.

In terms of favorite knights/characters, I guess it really depends on the account, but I have always loved the more morally ambiguous characters. I'm a huge fan of Gawain....he tends to fall closer to the "good" side, but he's beautifully flawed and White writes him in glorious shades of grey. I was kind of annoyed by Malory's interpretation of him, though. I also find Agravaine (the second Orkney brother) very interesting. Bradley's version of Mordred is AWESOME (as is her version of Morgaine, of course). White is making me really, really like Lancelot -- I agree that White's portrayal of him (or what I've seen of it so far) is indeed very moving. White is also making me like Guinevere, though I've kind of just met her where I am in the book right now, so we'll see how far that goes. It would be wonderful if I continue to like White's version of her, because I HATED her in The Mists of Avalon (and kind of felt bad about it because I think everyone hates Bradley's version of her), and the other accounts I've read really don't give much insight into her character. I could go on forever about how much I love the characters of the Arthurian legend.

Oh, and I'm another one who watches the BBC Merlin series. It definitely does have its fair share of plot holes and inconsistencies, and the characters' origins are VASTLY different from those of the Arthurian characters we might know, but it's an interesting take on the legend. I would recommend giving it a try.

[Buh4Bee]

I am glad to hear a good review of The Midst of Avalon. I am currently downloading it to my Kindle that I got for Christmas.

[Wilde woman]

Hi, taintedlove! I'm glad we were able to draw you out of your lurking status with Arthur.


Although I haven't yet finished The Once and Future King, I have a feeling it's going to take it's spot as my absolute favorite account. I love how White really focuses on the relationships between the characters and allows us to get to know them (and the setting) through descriptions that are detailed, but not overbearing.

I'm so glad to hear someone else lauding The Once and Future King, which is probably my favorite book of all time. It feels like a nice little Xmas present to me to have a discussion with someone else about it.


White is making me really, really like Lancelot -- I agree that White's portrayal of him (or what I've seen of it so far) is indeed very moving. White is also making me like Guinevere, though I've kind of just met her where I am in the book right now, so we'll see how far that goes.

Yes, White's Lancelot is so different and really amazing. Apparently, White based Lancelot's character largely on himself, which tells you a lot about White's own self-image. You can read more about it in Elisabeth Brewer's study (http://www.amazon.com/T-H-Whites-Future-Arthurian-Studies/dp/0859913937/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293304318&sr=1-5). Hers is the only book length study I know of that's been done on OaFK. I'm not as sold on White's Guinevere as you are, though I agree that he humanizes her, but not in a totally sympathetic way.

I also love the way White portrays the Orkney faction, and really attempts to differentiate the brothers from each other. He really gets into the complicated mother-son aspect of that family. Other White characters I love: Merlyn, Pellinore (:D), Elaine (he merges the two of them into one), Gawain (esp. in the last book), Gareth, and Robin Wood. Tristan's story gets completely omitted, and that's probably the one thing I wish White had tried to include, though I understand why he decided not to...including another love story would have ultimately been distracting. Also, Yvain is another of my favorite knights and he's never really mentioned.

Do you enjoy the political allegory running throughout? Even though White's use of "Might makes right" and "Right for right", and some such slogans is anachronistic, I think it really makes accessible the struggles Arthur is going through to make himself a just king.

Finally, if you end up really enjoying OaFK, you might want to check out its sequel, the Book of Merlyn (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Merlyn-Unpublished-Conclusion-Future/dp/029270769X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1293305095&sr=8-1-catcorr). Initially, White wanted to include this as the fifth and final book of OaFK but WWII and his editors got in the way, so it was published separately and posthumously. It's so very different from OaFK because, instead of completing the legend, as one expects, it takes it back to the beginning in an unexpected way. And it is a good deal more philosophical than OaFK. But despite its philosophy-heavy background, there were a few moments that made me tear up, just as there were in OaFK. (I won't spoil it anymore for you.)

Enjoy!

[taintedlove]

Wilde woman -- just sent you a long PM because my post ended up being too detailed and possibly boring, but thanks for the recs! I will definitely check out the Elisabeth Brewer book and Book of Merlyn at some point. :)

[Wilde woman]

Taintedlove, I just replied to your PM, but I realized that I forgot to comment on something from your original post, so I'll do that here.


King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, though I don't remember the author's name.

Was this by any chance a children's book by Howard Pyle? Coincidentally, I'm starting this book after picking it up at a used book store for a ridiculously cheap price.


I have always loved the more morally ambiguous characters. I'm a huge fan of Gawain....he tends to fall closer to the "good" side, but he's beautifully flawed and White writes him in glorious shades of grey. I was kind of annoyed by Malory's interpretation of him, though. I also find Agravaine (the second Orkney brother) very interesting. Bradley's version of Mordred is AWESOME (as is her version of Morgaine, of course).

Yes, I too love the morally ambiguous characters. Kay strikes me as one of the most ambiguous characters, especially since nobody quite knows where his horrible nature comes from. He is Arthur's seneschal, for Chrissakes!! I think in some traditions it's just accepted that he's the trickster figure, but in other texts, it really seems like he has a stick up his butt, and you just don't know where all his venom comes from. In the chronicles, he's just another loyal knight. I think one of the first texts where you see dissent brewing in Kay is in the Welsh Culwch and Olwen, where Kay is actually loyal until Arthur jokingly insults him! And the text goes onto say that from that day forward, Kay holds a grudge over that insult. So if we believe the Welsh author, Kay's arse-holiness is actually Arthur's fault!

But more texts you read, the more knights become ambiguous. If you're interested in Gawain (my favorite knight as well, so far), you MUST read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, where he is portrayed much better than he is in Malory. (In Malory's defense, though, he makes Gawain flawed for a reason. Often Gawain's failures act as a foil to highlight someone else's success...Lancelot's or Gareth's, for example. And Malory does go to great lengths to redeem Gawain at his death.) And in one text I can think of, The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, Gawain is actually portrayed as morally superior to Arthur! But in others...like almost anything to do with the Grail quest...he falls short to Lancelot, Perceval, Bors, and Galahad.

Speaking of which, I've always thought Bors was quite an interesting character. And there's a lot to be unpacked in his morality, if you take his actions out of a Christian context. White even heightens this problem by having him do something in OaFK which (I believe) he doesn't do in Malory.

To me, Mordred is probably the most interesting knight. The prophecy of his birth forces Arthur into his first most morally questionable action - the May Day Massacre. His evil is truly born from his father's sin, and - from a modern standpoint - would be largely condoned. He has very good reasons for wanting revenge, and it would be fascinating to explore his mother-son relationship. And I LOVE White's depiction of him, not only as hell-bent on revenge, but both physically and mentally deformed. One of my friends described White's version of him as "a mad, black-clad, sinister version of Hamlet." White isn't really that sympathetic to Mordred, but I've read some modern versions which are told from Mordred's PoV. Most notably, I remember a YA book called I Am Mordred (http://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Mordred-Tale-Camelot/dp/0698118413/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293358399&sr=1-1) by Nancy Springer. Though pretty modern, it's quite a nice revisionist version of Mordred; it made me feel even more sorry for him.

[blackbird_9]

As far as a good fun read, I've always liked Mists of Avalon. I'm not a feminist or anything, but I've read that book three times and enjoyed it every time. As far as Lance is concerned, he is a bit annoying. But I liked Bradley's interpretation where his love for Gwen is nothing but a projection of his love for Aurther. In a weird way, Lance and Aurther hot for each other kinda makes sense and makes the story and both their characters more interesting.

[kasie]

..... Kay strikes me as one of the most ambiguous characters, especially since nobody quite knows where his horrible nature comes from. He is Arthur's seneschal, for Chrissakes!! I think in some traditions it's just accepted that he's the trickster figure, but in other texts, it really seems like he has a stick up his butt, and you just don't know where all his venom comes from. In the chronicles, he's just another loyal knight. I think one of the first texts where you see dissent brewing in Kay is in the Welsh Culwch and Olwen, where Kay is actually loyal until Arthur jokingly insults him! And the text goes onto say that from that day forward, Kay holds a grudge over that insult. So if we believe the Welsh author, Kay's arse-holiness is actually Arthur's fault!

......

Isn't Kay Arthur's 'brother'? That is to say, they were brought up together as brothers but are not actually related by blood? Or have I got that from T H White? I've always thought that Kay's sullenness is just an example of sibling rivalry - the 'little brother' who got pushed around as a boy turns out to be the most powerful man in the kingdom: what an example of having your nose put out of joint!

I always had a sneaking regard for Kay - I don't know, maybe it's the name...:D

[Wilde woman]

In a weird way, Lance and Aurther hot for each other kinda makes sense and makes the story and both their characters more interesting.

It makes sense on a lot of levels. Since Arthur spent his childhood not knowing about his royal blood, he probably looked up to knights as his role models, and the ideal knight like Lancelot would've been an object of desire to him. And for Lancelot, under the dual codes of chivalry and courtly love, would've been subordinate and devoted to both his liege lord and ladylove. It's just tough for him that he chose the queen as his ladylove. I actually just bought a cheap copy of Mists of Avalon, since I realized I can't have a real discussion without rereading it.


Isn't Kay Arthur's 'brother'? That is to say, they were brought up together as brothers but are not actually related by blood? Or have I got that from T H White? I've always thought that Kay's sullenness is just an example of sibling rivalry - the 'little brother' who got pushed around as a boy turns out to be the most powerful man in the kingdom: what an example of having your nose put out of joint!

Well yeah, Kay is Arthur's foster brother in Malory (which White adapted), but that relationship only happens in the later Arthurian tradition. The character of Kay waaaaay predates Malory. He's one of the earliest Arthurian knights, and he has a bad temper in some of the earlier stuff as well (though his loyalty to Arthur is never questioned). So Malory basically took a Kay who was already notorious for his bad temper and, by making him Ector's son (and thus Arthur's foster brother), gave him a rationale for his bad temper. But we still don't know what caused Kay's original arse-holiness in earlier Arthurian stuff.


I always had a sneaking regard for Kay - I don't know, maybe it's the name...

In some of the Welsh stuff, Kay has super powers. For example, he is immune to fire and water, and I read somewhere that he can actually create fire with his bare hands! Talk about hot! :lol:

[kasie]

....In some of the Welsh stuff, Kay has super powers. For example, he is immune to fire and water, and I read somewhere that he can actually create fire with his bare hands! Talk about hot! :lol:

Interesting, WW - isn't the ability to create fire from his hands one of Merlin's attributes as well? Or have I got that from The Crystal Cave? The Mary Stewart trilogy is one of my favourite renditions of the Arthurian stories, told from Merlin's point of view and told in a semi-'historic' setting.

[MystyrMystyry]

I read a few years ago that some prof had discovered proof that the original Arthurian Legend pre-dated the Roman invasion - imagine, Albion proper - but unfortuanately it was on the Internet, and the size and veracity of that place is, well, you know, all over the ah place

Reformatted hard-drives have destroyed bookmarks, Google brings up nonsense regarding the actual site, sidetracking brings forgetfulness

But if you find anything in your travels, be sure to put up a link

[Wilde woman]

Interesting, WW - isn't the ability to create fire from his hands one of Merlin's attributes as well? Or have I got that from The Crystal Cave? The Mary Stewart trilogy is one of my favourite renditions of the Arthurian stories, told from Merlin's point of view and told in a semi-'historic' setting.

Good question...I'm not sure about that. Merlin is one of the gaping holes in my Arthurian studies. I haven't read much on him at all...what I know of him comes solely from Geoffrey of Monmouth and Malory.

Would you recommend the Stewart series? I've heard of them, but never actually read them. Do they focus on Merlin exclusively? Ah, that reminds me...have you read T.A. Barron's Merlin series?


I read a few years ago that some prof had discovered proof that the original Arthurian Legend pre-dated the Roman invasion - imagine, Albion proper

That would be interesting. I've never heard that. I wonder if that means they're basing Arthur off someone other than the fifth-century warlord. It wouldn't surprise me if some characters of Arthurian legend predate the Roman invasion (like Merlin or Tristan), but the actual legend itself?

[kasie]

I certainly enjoyed the Stewart series, WW, though it's many years since I read them. Though she concentrates initially on Merlin, she tells the whole story gradually through the three books. It was the first time I had come across the idea that there might be an historical basis to the Arthurian legend and it intrigued me enough to read more on the subject. I found Phillips and Keatman's King Arthur - The True Story interesting and Skene's book Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland was thought provoking.

I haven't read the Barron books - I'll look out for them: thank you.

Going slightly off topic - which of the filmed versions of the legend do you like best? For atmosphere, my vote goes to Excalibur.

[blackbird_9]

Going slightly off topic - which of the filmed versions of the legend do you like best? For atmosphere, my vote goes to Excalibur.

Disney's Sword and the Stone. No contest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lD8t_x9BVI

[Wilde woman]

Kasie - I haven't heard of those two titles...thanks for the suggestions.


Going slightly off topic - which of the filmed versions of the legend do you like best? For atmosphere, my vote goes to Excalibur.

Quite honestly, I haven't seen any Arthur films that I really truly like. I'm embarrassed to say I haven't actually seen Excalibur and the recent Tristan and Isolde movie...but I haven't gotten around them to yet. As blackbird mentioned, Disney's Sword in the Stone is great, though I wouldn't really consider it straight Arthurian. Archimedes the owl is hilarious, though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfBb8-oY0xg&feature=related And I adore the squirrel scene! though it's not in the book.

The Clive Owen King Arthur was bleh. :sick: For one of my classes this year, we watched two French films...one which was almost a line-by-line retelling of Chretien's Perceval, which was laughable. And the other was the Tristan and Isolde story set during the WWII period, which I didn't enjoy either, mainly because I'm not a fan of Tristan. I don't know if anyone saw the made-for-TV-movie of Mists of Avalon, but I didn't like it. Honestly, the most enjoyable Arthur film I've seen is a parody...Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :D

I've been keeping an eye on the OaFK movie which is slated to come out in 2012, but nothing much has been happening on imdb, so I'm skeptical about whether that project will actually come to fruition. Would you recommend anything other than Excalibur?

[taintedlove]

But I liked Bradley's interpretation where his love for Gwen is nothing but a projection of his love for Aurther. In a weird way, Lance and Aurther hot for each other kinda makes sense and makes the story and both their characters more interesting.

T.H. White also kind of plays with this idea. In OaFK, his being "in love" with Arthur as a young teenager is what drives him to develop and hone his skills and ultimately become Arthur's best knight. I would agree that this dynamic between Lancelot and Arthur makes a lot of sense in both books.

Regarding film adaptations of the Arthurian legends, I too thought Excalibur was great. I also really liked the 1998 Merlin miniseries with Sam Neill. I watched Tristan and Isolde when I was in 8th grade (when it first came out), and I honestly don't remember much about it other than the fact that James Franco was in it, so it's probably safe to say it wasn't memorable. I agree that the Clive Owen King Arthur was disappointing -- the idea behind it was interesting and they could've done a lot with it, but it just didn't come through at all. I did like the actor who played Lancelot in that, though, and IIRC Lancelot was one of the few (maybe the only) characters in that movie whose characteristics were close to those of the Lancelot of the legend, which is interesting.

There's going to be an OaFK movie?! That's awesome...though I wonder how they'll pull that off, considering how long and detailed the book is. Hopefully they'll do a better job than they did with Mists of Avalon, which I haven't actually seen, but which I've heard isn't very good.

[sithkittie]

Honestly, the most enjoyable Arthur film I've seen is a parody...Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :D


This!! I love that movie. Have you gotten a chance to see any of the new BBC Merlin series yet?

I found Excalibur at the used DVD store the other day, but I wasn't sure about it so I left it. It sounds like I should go pick it up, huh?

(*edit*) And now I have the "Knights of the Round Table" song stuck in my head, and it's going to be there all day.

[Lord Macbeth]

Hooray for my FAVORITE genre (after the Bard, of course!) ;)

My favorite knight is EASILY Sir Gawain as presented by the Pearl Poet in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," which is, of course, my favorite individual of Arthurian literature.

My favorite book is the classic by Mallory, and the ending, in full, is one of the most superb tragedies in all of English literature...Lancelot and Gawain's fight evokes images of Hector and Achilles or Hamlet and Laertes, the latter actually being my favorite analogy as both fights begin over a misunderstanding, are fought ferociously and with at least one combatant seeping with a drive for vengeance agaisnt the other, that combatant loses (Laertes and Gawain) and reconciles in death with the victor (Hamlet and Lancelot.)

A magnificent piece.

[Wilde woman]

Have you gotten a chance to see any of the new BBC Merlin series yet?

Yes, indeed! Lucky for me, I can watch every episode on hulu for free! I probably wouldn't have started it otherwise. I've made it about halfway through the first season. And I pretty much agree with what everyone has said...the storylines and scripts are pretty ridiculous (snakes from a shield...really???) and only vaguely Arthurian, but it makes for good entertainment and nice eye candy. (I must say Morgana has to be one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen, and this is coming from a completely straight woman, here. :D) I also geeked out when I saw that Anthony Head plays Uther! :yesnod:

Let's face it; nobody's watching the series for historical accuracy or even accuracy according to ANY Arthurian text. It really amuses me that BBC is trying to be diverse, including a non-white Guinevere and a Hispanic Lancelot!!! A couple of quick (nerdy) comments:

I think all the magical incantations are in Old English. I'm not an Anglo-Saxonist, so can anyone confirm? I'm pretty sure I caught a few Old English words during a couple of the episodes. (That was interesting, because I expected Latin...everyone and their mother seems to do Latin for spells, so I'm glad the creators of this series went for something a little different.)

One of the (slightly) redeeming features of the series is that the writers seem to have a passing knowledge History of the Kings of Britain, by Geoffrey of Monmouth, which is the oldest complete Arthurian text. I mean 1) Geoffrey of Monmouth is an actual character, a crotchety old archivist...which is funny and 2) Remember Edwin? The creepy scar-faced mage who tries to replace Gaius? I'm pretty sure he's a (very loose) reference to the Edwin vs. Cadwallo episode in HKB. In Geoffrey, Saxon Edwin is actually a threat to the British Cadwallo's throne, and unsuccessfully enlists the aid of a foreign magician to try to overthrow Cadwallo.

What's up with all the flowers? There are an awful lot of flowers in the series, and it makes me wonder if the writers are parodying the cliched and much-hated phrase, "flower of chivalry" to describe the knights. :smilielol5: If that were true, it would make my day!

I really HATE the dragon. I think the whole idea of the wise old immortal dragon-mentor is so cliched. Plus, this dragon is given no oomph! He's trapped beneath Camelot by a chain? And gives advice whenever he's summoned? C'mon! The series treats him like a puppy/crystal ball, and he has no character! Maybe I'm spoiled by reading a couple of novels recently with great snappy dragon characters (like Grendel), but I just don't like this dragon. He just feels like he's there to give some sort of legendary weight to Merlin's and Arthur's Destiny (with a capital D). I mean...really...does anyone watching the series NOT know that they're destined for greatness? And everything else the dragon provides could easily be figured out some other way by Merlin, et al...and would make him a more adult figure. He's already got a mentor/father figure in Gaius, so why do we need a dragon? BUT the dragon did drop a hint about the future that he will play a bigger role later, and I'm hoping he turns out to be the dragon I suspect he will, so we'll see.

And I know I'm only in season 1, but I'm actually loving the character of Morgana. She's smart and sensible, but also has a vulnerability which I think is endearing. In fact, I like both female leads...her and Guinevere. Gwen's relationship with Merlin is adorable! Obviously, there's trouble in her love life ahead! Does anyone have any theories about how she will end up with Arthur? She seems to admire Arthur from a distance, so maybe she'll marry him out of hero worship and then be torn when Lancelot returns. Or perhaps Merlin will (in an angsty speech) force her to see the practicality of marrying Arthur, based on a prescient vision. Thoughts?


I agree that the Clive Owen King Arthur was disappointing -- the idea behind it was interesting and they could've done a lot with it, but it just didn't come through at all.

Do you mean making Arthur a Roman? I agree that not many film adaptations have done that, though it is historically plausible. But the Guinevere storyline in this movie was laughable.

And, yes, there will be an OaFK movie, at least according to imdb.com!!! But I haven't heard any press for it, nor have any of the cast members been announced, so I'm skeptical that it'll actually come out by 2012.

Just curious...has anyone read the original Sword in the Stone by T.H. White? It's not the same as the first book of OaFK, but is a stand alone novel. White includes a number of scenes in it which didn't make the final cut for the OaFK version, but did get put into the Book of Merlyn....off the top of my head, there's Madame Mim, a snake episode, an extended bit with Morgan le Fay, a meeting with Athene, and a scene about trees. I'd love to discuss it, if anyone has read it.

[taintedlove]

I think all the magical incantations are in Old English. I'm not an Anglo-Saxonist, so can anyone confirm? I'm pretty sure I caught a few Old English words during a couple of the episodes. (That was interesting, because I expected Latin...everyone and their mother seems to do Latin for spells, so I'm glad the creators of this series went for something a little different.)

I know nothing about Old English, but I remember listening to an interview with one of the actors from the second series, and she did mention that she had to learn Old English for the spells. That's the only information I have, though.


And I know I'm only in season 1, but I'm actually loving the character of Morgana. She's smart and sensible, but also has a vulnerability which I think is endearing. In fact, I like both female leads...her and Guinevere. Gwen's relationship with Merlin is adorable! Obviously, there's trouble in her love life ahead! Does anyone have any theories about how she will end up with Arthur? She seems to admire Arthur from a distance, so maybe she'll marry him out of hero worship and then be torn when Lancelot returns. Or perhaps Merlin will (in an angsty speech) force her to see the practicality of marrying Arthur, based on a prescient vision. Thoughts?

I love this show's Guinevere! Well, I don't exactly like how the writers/producers treat her character over the three series, but the show's interpretation of her is refreshing. I like that she's the opposite of what you'd expect Guinevere to be, while still embodying traces of the positive characteristics of the Guinevere of legend (i.e. boldness, intelligence, practicality). Morgana in the first season reminded me a little of Morgaine in The Mists of Avalon, whom I really, really loved. Her friendly but UST-filled relationship with Arthur is quite well-handled. Unfortunately, I can't answer your last question because I've watched all three series and would be spoiling you if I did, but....people's views on how the show handles that particular plot point differ A LOT, but I liked the way they handled it.

Oh and I hate the dragon, too. For that matter, I'm also not a huge fan of Gaius' character, for various reasons. It's kind of sad because I think the actor who plays him is awesome, but in every interaction Merlin has with him, it always appears to me like the writers want to make Merlin look extremely naive. In fact, there are times when all four of the core characters (well, with the exception of Gwen, actually, who's often portrayed to be the most mature of the four, even though she or Merlin is supposed to be the youngest) are portrayed as naive to the point of ridiculousness, which is bothersome.


Do you mean making Arthur a Roman? I agree that not many film adaptations have done that, though it is historically plausible. But the Guinevere storyline in this movie was laughable.

Yes, I was intrigued by the movie because it was supposed to be about the "historical Arthur" and his "band" as opposed to Round Table of knights, which I thought would be a refreshing twist on the characters of the legend. However, the only character that came off as interesting to me was Lancelot, and Clive Owen was not at all convincing as Arthur. And I agree, it definitely seemed like they introduced Guinevere in that movie just to throw the name out there.

[Wilde woman]

Update on Merlin: I've finished the first two seasons and am just starting on the third. Here are a few of my thoughts so far. Spoilers follow.

I'm a little disappointed with the Merlin character. Given all that he's experienced, you would think his character would change more. After all he's,

1) befriended a dragon and become a Dragonlord (I resent the fact that humans can control dragons at all...the concept is just SLIGHTLY irrational)
2) shown that he can recognize magic in others (like Morgana and Mordred)
3) has ALREADY crossed over to Avalon
4) killed a sorceress as powerful as Nimue
5) experienced the loss of a loved ones (his father Balinor and Freya, the Lady of the Lake)
6) shown that he has a dark side (by attempting to kill Morgana)

Yet, having done all that, he still hasn't really matured as a character. Other than the occasionally moody spat, he's still the same. You would think that the loss of his father or his lover would make him more emotionally cautious and less willing to trust others. Nope. And you might perhaps think that he'd show more interest in the mechanics of magic, if only as a way to explain to us (the audience) the rules of magic within this realm. Shouldn't he be more curious about the tie between humans and dragons? How much power does he really wield over the dragon? Isn't he curious about Nimue's power and her connection to Avalon? Or about the visions of the future that Morgana has? Isn't he curious about the extent of his powers? It makes me a little angry that magic is reduced to muttering incantations in Old English, a little hand-waving, glowing eyes, and gibberish about the "balance" of life and death. I wish the show would establish some ground rules for magic.

I agree with taintedlove that the four leads are quite naive. With Gwen and Morgana, I don't mind the naivete so much, because the writers clearly go somewhere with it. Gwen's naive idealism is at the heart of her character and plays a major role in making Arthur fall in love with her. Morgana starts off quite naive (which was the total opposite of what I expected) and, as her hatred for Uther develops, uses her naive persona as a facade for her truly evil character.

It really bothers me that the Merlin and Arthur characters are so inconsistent. It seems that their characters are basically subject to the plotlines of the individual stories. The show really plays up Arthur's prowess as a warrior (via Geoffrey's "dux bellorum") but then shows him easily beaten by Morgause or by two average knights, when in fact he's fought off greater odds before.

One episode that really disappointed me was "Sins of the Father" (S2) in which Arthur discovers the truth about his birth from Morgause. This episode had SO MUCH POTENTIAL, but then ended on an anticlimactic note. I thought this was Bradley James' best performance. His devastation when he discovers his father's hypocrisy was so believable, and I felt like he was completely justified in wanting to kill his father. But Merlin prevents him from killing Uther simply by claiming that Morgause (a sorceress) lied to him. AND ARTHUR JUST ACCEPTS IT??? :mad2: If I were him, I would want hard evidence that Morgause's story isn't true, and wouldn't accept just my father's word. I know the writers were trying to spin this episode as a test for Merlin as well as Arthur (Is Merlin willing to decry magic to save Uther?), the Merlin storyline was almost completely neglected in favor of Arthur's, and that made the ending ridiculously unbelievable. This episode could have been a real game-changer for Arthur and Uther, but instead we're put back at the status quo, and it seems that all that pain amounted to nothing. Arthur learns nothing (or chooses not to believe it), Uther redoubles his efforts against magic, and Merlin (after a hefty sacrifice) shows no ill effects. Words cannot express my frustration.

If Merlin and Arthur are inconsistent characters, I have the exact opposite problem with Uther. His crusade against magic is one-dimensional, utterly irrational, and is becoming tedious. As much as I love Anthony Head, I almost with they'd kill off Uther completely, just so we don't have to keep repeating these predictable plots. In the legends, Merlin becomes Uther's trusted sage and advisor, and Uther heeds his omens and respects his magic. How is that EVER going to happen on this show? Obviously, the show is NOT at all concerned with following the traditional story, but STILL these are major plot points that need to be addressed eventually.


Her friendly but UST-filled relationship with Arthur is quite well-handled. Unfortunately, I can't answer your last question because I've watched all three series and would be spoiling you if I did, but....people's views on how the show handles that particular plot point differ A LOT, but I liked the way they handled it.

YES!!!! This is one of the highlights of the show for me. For me, it's one of the few changes they've made to the traditional story that actually works well, because it's one of the few that actually allows the characters to grow. Guinevere's role as a servant, and one who sees the good in Arthur, is really softening up the Arthur character, and showing his process of maturing. They are both changing each other for the better, and I think the way it is happening is rather realistic. I like that they're taking their time with this romance, letting it bud rather organically. I think Arthur is the character who has shown the most growth throughout the seasons, while the rest of the characters (with the notable exception of Morgana) largely stay the same.

When Lancelot was first introduced, I wasn't sure I liked how he was handled. But as the story has gone on, I've come to appreciate how the writers have handled the introduction of major characters like Lancelot, Gawaine, and Morgause. It makes sense to keep these big knights at a distance (simply coming and going), while we focus on the our main cast of six. However, I really like how they're handling the differences between Lancelot and Gawaine, traditionally Arthur's two best knights. Lancelot is a peasant who must pretend to be a nobleman to become a knight. Gawaine is a nobleman who refuses to acknowledge his blue blood because he hates the way nobility treats others. Lancelot is a man of ideals, who truly believes in the highest notions of chivalry: purity, loyalty to one's king, and utmost respect for women. Gawaine, on the other hand, seems to approach the idea of chivalry with disdain (since it is ultimately the code of nobility), but upholds its core values of courage and honor. Though these issues of class have no textual basis, it's interesting to see the way the writers play with them. I only wish they hadn't introduced Gawain alone...I wish they'd also brought in his brothers or his mother, since family is so important to him. It would've been cool to see those seeds sown, because ultimately they're the ones that turn Lancelot and Gawaine against each other. (BTW, is his name Gwaine or Gawaine? The title of the episode is "Gwaine" but everyone seems to pronounce it "Gawaine". If it's the former, I'll bet the elided first syllable is a nod to Gawain's Welsh origins, in which he's named "Gwalchmei".)

But I LOVE how the various knights' relationships with Guinevere give us hints at the major problems ahead. The Arthur/Lancelot/Guinevere triangle has already received some play (and was handled rather sensitively IMO), and Gawaine's flirtation with Guinevere not only established him as the infamous ladies' man that he'll become later, and as a way to bring out Arthur's jealousy. And I'm VERY curious to see how Guinevere eventually becomes queen. Could it ever happen under Uther's reign? Does he have to die for it to happen? Will Guinevere come between Arthur and his father?

I HATE the way they're handling the Mordred storyline. I cannot believe they made him just a Druid boy who has no familial connection to Arthur or Morgana. (Or perhaps they'll reveal his parentage later??) I mean, simply the fact that he's around already is deviating from the story. But if they dare take away his genealogy as bastard child of Arthur and Morgause, I'll lose complete faith in the show. That is THE KEY to Arthur's tragedy. How could they f*ck up that???? It makes me wonder if the writers are displacing some of Arthur's typical aspects onto Uther. I wonder if Mordred will turn out to be the illegitimate child between Uther and some sorceress (Nimue?), which will then bring about Uther's fall. The show seems to hint that Mordred has a special connection with Morgana, so there may be a family tie there too.

About Morgana and Morgause: I think Morgana's turn to evil happened too suddenly and too inconsistently. In season one, she has already undermined Uther (by helping Mordred escape) and has tried to kill him, yet she returns to loving him (after a MAGNIFICENT performance by Anthony Head). In general, I understand her hatred of Uther, but I'm surprised that she hasn't yet acted specifically to undermine Merlin. If I were her, I'd probably hate Merlin more for attempting to kill me. AND I wonder what exactly she and Morgause did in the year between season 2 and 3. I had thought that they might be working on mastering Morgana's magic or gathering allies against Uther, but neither seems to be true. And, I'm still murky on the exact relationship between Morgause and Morgana: they're called half-sisters, but through whom are they related? (Traditionally, they're full sisters, as daughters of Gorlois and Igraine.) Is Morgause's father Gorlois? Or are they related on their mother's side? Who is the mother? And how does Mordred tie into this?

Finally, I find it supremely interesting that they haven't managed to fill the huge gaping lack of Christianity! The cast explicitly refers to Druidism and magic as the "old religion", so doesn't that set us up to ask what's the new religion? One would think Uther and Arthur would be Christian, and that would open up the door for interesting portrayals of Saracen knights, like Palomides. But it has NEVER come up and that astounds me! It's such a big part of the traditional literature. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm a little relieved...partially because it's refreshing to see an Arthur without the overt Christian overtones (and because I'm not Christian). On the other hand, I'm a little disappointed. How will they address such important plot points as the Holy Grail, the introduction of the Round Table, or Arthur vs. Lucius without Christianity? (Probably this latter point is moot, since we haven't even seen Rome yet.) My guess is that the writers couldn't talk about Christianity explicitly for political reasons, but if that's the case, they could've made the spiritual beliefs more interesting. Overall, this Camelot seems more tolerant (what with African knights and a non-white Guinevere), but magic seems to take the traditional place of persecution usually allotted to pagans or Saracens. What do y'all think about the glaring absence of Christianity?

More later. I'll come back to post my thoughts on stand-out episodes, and how they relate to actual Arthurian texts.

[taintedlove]

I'm a little disappointed with the Merlin character. Given all that he's experienced, you would think his character would change more.

Yes, I totally agree with this. For starters, I wish they'd change the episode introductions and stop referring to Merlin as a "young boy" as though he's 12 years old, because he's clearly not. It's disappointing how reset-button-happy the writers of the show seem to be, and how after such huge turning points as the killing of Nimue and Merlin's becoming a dragonlord, he's not that much more powerful than he was in the first season. Honestly, if it weren't for Colin Morgan (who is ridiculously amazing), I would probably hate the Merlin character with a passion.


It really bothers me that the Merlin and Arthur characters are so inconsistent. It seems that their characters are basically subject to the plotlines of the individual stories. The show really plays up Arthur's prowess as a warrior (via Geoffrey's "dux bellorum") but then shows him easily beaten by Morgause or by two average knights, when in fact he's fought off greater odds before.

Argh, the Arthur character on this show bothers me so much! I think the only reason I like him even just a little bit is because Bradley James does such a good job of playing him, especially in the serious scenes where he's either portrayed as a leader or where he's opposite Gwen. I don't understand why the writers STILL want to knock him out at convenient moments and just generally make him come across as an idiot. Even after three seasons, I don't know how this Arthur is going to be a convincing King of England.


One episode that really disappointed me was "Sins of the Father" (S2) in which Arthur discovers the truth about his birth from Morgause. This episode had SO MUCH POTENTIAL, but then ended on an anticlimactic note. I thought this was Bradley James' best performance. His devastation when he discovers his father's hypocrisy was so believable, and I felt like he was completely justified in wanting to kill his father. But Merlin prevents him from killing Uther simply by claiming that Morgause (a sorceress) lied to him. AND ARTHUR JUST ACCEPTS IT??? :mad2: If I were him, I would want hard evidence that Morgause's story isn't true, and wouldn't accept just my father's word. I know the writers were trying to spin this episode as a test for Merlin as well as Arthur (Is Merlin willing to decry magic to save Uther?), the Merlin storyline was almost completely neglected in favor of Arthur's, and that made the ending ridiculously unbelievable. This episode could have been a real game-changer for Arthur and Uther, but instead we're put back at the status quo, and it seems that all that pain amounted to nothing. Arthur learns nothing (or chooses not to believe it), Uther redoubles his efforts against magic, and Merlin (after a hefty sacrifice) shows no ill effects. Words cannot express my frustration.

THIS, all of this! "Sins of the Father" was actually generally an AWESOME episode, I thought....until Merlin decided to ruin it at the end. On top of everything, the ending of this episode completely set back the reveal of Merlin's magic (whenever the hell that's going to happen), because up until that point, Arthur was starting to embrace the viewpoint that magic could be used for good and turn against his father in that respect. That was PROGRESS. After the ending of that episode, we were back at square one with Arthur's views on magic. Again, how is he going to become the King that embraces those of the Old Religion and those of the new ways (whatever those are) alike? Unless season 4 becomes all about making Arthur see the good in magic, which is not entirely unreasonable....


In the legends, Merlin becomes Uther's trusted sage and advisor, and Uther heeds his omens and respects his magic. How is that EVER going to happen on this show? Obviously, the show is NOT at all concerned with following the traditional story, but STILL these are major plot points that need to be addressed eventually.

I highly, highly doubt there's ever going to be much of a Merlin-Uther dynamic on this show, since Merlin and Arthur are contemporaries. I was under the impression, though, that in the show's timeline, it was Nimue who filled the role of "Uther's trusted sage and advisor".


I really like how they're handling the differences between Lancelot and Gawaine, traditionally Arthur's two best knights. Lancelot is a peasant who must pretend to be a nobleman to become a knight. Gawaine is a nobleman who refuses to acknowledge his blue blood because he hates the way nobility treats others. Lancelot is a man of ideals, who truly believes in the highest notions of chivalry: purity, loyalty to one's king, and utmost respect for women. Gawaine, on the other hand, seems to approach the idea of chivalry with disdain (since it is ultimately the code of nobility), but upholds its core values of courage and honor. Though these issues of class have no textual basis, it's interesting to see the way the writers play with them. I only wish they hadn't introduced Gawain alone...I wish they'd also brought in his brothers or his mother, since family is so important to him. It would've been cool to see those seeds sown, because ultimately they're the ones that turn Lancelot and Gawaine against each other. (BTW, is his name Gwaine or Gawaine? The title of the episode is "Gwaine" but everyone seems to pronounce it "Gawaine". If it's the former, I'll bet the elided first syllable is a nod to Gawain's Welsh origins, in which he's named "Gwalchmei".)

I, too, love that the characteristics of Lancelot and Gwaine (I think this is how the show spells it) in the show are somewhat similar to those of the Lancelot and Gawain of the legends. I was also wondering about the Gawain-family bit, since his loyalty to his family is SUCH a huge part of his character in the legends. I hope the show will find a way to play on the Lancelot-Gawain relationship in later seasons, as that's one of my favorite friendships in the legends.

Speaking of Lancelot-Gawain (and simultaneously attempting to bring this thread back to the real King Arthur legends)....am I making this up about their being good friends? Because I definitely remember some text(s) highlighting their friendship, but they don't seem to have much of one in The Once and Future King, and IIRC they're not that close to each other in Malory, either. I wonder which text I must have read this in... Does anyone know of any other texts that highlight this friendship?


The Arthur/Lancelot/Guinevere triangle has already received some play (and was handled rather sensitively IMO)

Yes, if there's one thing I think the show is doing very well, it's the handling of the love triangle. I like that it's not overt yet, but that we're seeing in the most subtle way possible how the relationships between those three are going to play out.


I HATE the way they're handling the Mordred storyline. I cannot believe they made him just a Druid boy who has no familial connection to Arthur or Morgana. (Or perhaps they'll reveal his parentage later??) I mean, simply the fact that he's around already is deviating from the story. But if they dare take away his genealogy as bastard child of Arthur and Morgause, I'll lose complete faith in the show. That is THE KEY to Arthur's tragedy. How could they f*ck up that???? It makes me wonder if the writers are displacing some of Arthur's typical aspects onto Uther. I wonder if Mordred will turn out to be the illegitimate child between Uther and some sorceress (Nimue?), which will then bring about Uther's fall. The show seems to hint that Mordred has a special connection with Morgana, so there may be a family tie there too.

Yeah, I hope Mordred has SOME sort of familial ties to Arthur/Morgana/Camelot, because I find it hard to believe that some random kid with magic is going to bring down Arthur's future kingdom, just because his name happens to be Mordred. I'd like to think that--given his "bond" with Morgana and the UST between Arthur/Morgana in the first season--he is Arthur and Morgana's son. However, I kind of doubt that the writers will go down that path because 1) this is a family show and that storyline involves incest, and 2) they'd have to introduce a whole new backstory about how the baby is smuggled out of Camelot and how nobody found out in the first place. It would make things REALLY interesting, but sadly, I doubt the writers are going to run with that story. I would be pleasantly surprised if they did. :D I think it's more likely that he's Morgause's son, or Arthur's son by someone random....I hope it's the second, because the fact that he's ARTHUR'S SON is so important in the legends.


And, I'm still murky on the exact relationship between Morgause and Morgana: they're called half-sisters, but through whom are they related? (Traditionally, they're full sisters, as daughters of Gorlois and Igraine.) Is Morgause's father Gorlois? Or are they related on their mother's side? Who is the mother? And how does Mordred tie into this?

Some of this is revealed midway into season 3, but even then things are still kind of murky and unclear.

Again, trying to prevent this thread from becoming a solely Merlin-fest (does it even really matter? I've been on some forums where the mods are ruthless about making sure threads don't veer off-topic, but I don't know how that's dealt with here)....has anyone else watched the Mists of Avalon miniseries? I just watched it earlier this week, and yup, I thought it was laughable at best. I understand that they had to simplify the story, since the book is so long and complex, but everything just felt so stilted and ridiculous to me. It did make me want to go back and re-read that book, though I don't know when I'll find the time for that.

[kasie]

I did warn you the BBC series is utter tosh!! Don't try and fit the story-lines to the stories you know, whatever the source - only the names are the same, nothing else matches. I strongly suspect not one of the script-writers has read any of the original material, let alone tried to incorporate it into the scripts.

As for the 'Anglo Saxon' spells, I suspect it is 'cod' AS - granted my AS (or Old English' as my prof preferred it called) was learned a long time ago, but it doesn't exactly ring true, just sounds garbled Olde Englishe-y to me. And wasn't Arthur fighting the invading Saxons? Somehow I don't think adherents of the Old Religion would be speaking the language of the upstart invaders. But there I go again, trying to make logic out of the scrag-end stew they are presenting as the 'Arthurian' legend - and the trouble is, people who know nothing of the original will think this is a true representation of the stories. (That's my morning's grouch over and done with!)

[Wilde woman]

I strongly suspect not one of the script-writers has read any of the original material, let alone tried to incorporate it into the scripts.

Actually, I disagree. In my earlier posts I pointed out the references to Geoffrey of Monmouth, and there are a number of more explicit references to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, as I'll point out in my next post. And I have a suspicion that this more light-hearted Merlin character could be based on one of the Vulgate's source stories. And, I've also noticed some particularly good uses of irony...sometimes the writers seem to know how radically they're changing the story, and give us nice winking moments of "I know you know this isn't right, but aren't we clever for thinking of it?" :hand: (I'll point out a couple instances later.)

Now, these allusions aren't particularly well-used or even intelligently translated (most of the time, they're doing nothing more than name-dropping), but they do show a superficial understanding of some source material. Sometimes I even wonder if their more intelligent episodes and moments of irony are intentional, or whether it is me reading too far into it, because I so want a really really good Arthurian show out there. It's obvious that the show's writers are in no way trying to give us an accurate textual account, so there must be some leeway afforded for re-imagining the source material in a new way.

I don't think Merlin is a good show by any stretch of the imagination, but it has its moments of brilliance. And, I feel, that sometimes...just sometimes...its revisionist tendency actually works.


and the trouble is, people who know nothing of the original will think this is a true representation of the stories.

Yes, I agree with you on that. This does get my blood boiling too! But at the same time, part of the beauty of the Arthurian legends is that they are so translatable, and has been shown over time to be one of the legends most amenable towards revisionist adaptations. After all, if it gets the younger generation reading any original Arthurian material, I feel like it's done its job. I'm slightly biased because my own scholarly interest in Arthuriana began in pop culture (Mists of Avalon and T.H. White), and proved quite fruitful to me. I wish I'd had an Arthurian show to watch while growing up!


I was under the impression, though, that in the show's timeline, it was Nimue who filled the role of "Uther's trusted sage and advisor".

Yes, good catch! I missed that. As kasie said, it's difficult trying to apply textual references to the show in a coherent way, because its timeline is all messed up. The more I think about it, the more the show is displacing things which happen to Arthur onto Uther's life.


I'd like to think that--given his "bond" with Morgana and the UST between Arthur/Morgana in the first season--he is Arthur and Morgana's son.

It's possible, but Arthur seems rather virginal to me. Other than Guinevere, there hasn't even been a hint that he's had other lovers. (In fact, doesn't he say in one episode to Guinevere that "there's never been another"?) And I actually think the earlier UST between Arthur and Morgana (and at the VERY beginning, Merlin and Guinevere) were early experiments that the writers were making, before changing direction and deciding to go with an Arthur/Gwen romance.

BTW, I had no idea what UST meant until I went a looked it up. (I thought it was a typo for LUST. :D) But do you really think it's sexual tension between Arthur and Guinevere. I mean, it is a factor, but I've felt that the sexual tension is actually underplayed. I feel like Arthur loves Guinevere more for her blunt honesty and her faith in him, rather than anything physical. Moreover, Guinevere's attraction to Arthur seemed to start off as somewhat lustful...hero worship from afar...but turned into an attraction for his essential decency, loyalty, and generosity to his friends. I can only think of a couple moments where there is any explicit sexuality.


Speaking of Lancelot-Gawain (and simultaneously attempting to bring this thread back to the real King Arthur legends)....am I making this up about their being good friends? Because I definitely remember some text(s) highlighting their friendship, but they don't seem to have much of one in The Once and Future King, and IIRC they're not that close to each other in Malory, either.

Honestly, I cannot think of any off the top of my head, probably because I'm not familiar with much of later Arthuriana (past the 12th-13th centuries) besides Malory. Besides Tristan, these two are often considered the "best" knights because they're almost undefeated. I wonder if Chretien says anything about this...has anyone read his Lancelot, of the Knight of the Cart? I'm guessing if there was any original Lancelot-Gawain friendship, it would be in that text. I haven't yet found the time to finish it.

I'm off to the grocery store now, but I'll be back with more thoughts about the play between the texts and the show.

BTW, if anyone is interested in reading/discussing Tennyson's Idylls of the King with me, I've started a thread in the Tennyson sub-forum. It'll be a nice way to get back into discussing Arthurian texts rather than the show.

[sithkittie]

I caught some things in the show that rang true to what I've read, but I pretty much agree with most of what's being said here so I'll keep my comments at that. :P

I've never read Idylls of the King, and I just flipped to Gutenberg to download it. I shall attempt to read it soon! I did just realize it's a poem though (I'm slow on the uptake sometimes) so uh, yeah, it might take me a bit if it's really poem-ish. Good excuse to read that one though, thanks!

[Wilde woman]

Finally, I've finished season 3 of Merlin! As the show has continued, my opinion of it has risen slightly, since each season seems successively better at tying together major story arcs, instead of relying too heavily on the threat-of-the-week formulas. I still have very mixed feelings about the series because it changes so much of the essential story, but I'm simultaneously intrigued by some of their revisions. I'll briefly talk about my gut reaction to each season, then I want to spend some time discussing the way the series uses Arthurian source texts. Obviously, SPOILERS follow.

Season 1 was definitely the weakest one for me, and the finale did not touch me emotionally at all, since I never found the character of Nimueh very interesting. It seemed the point of season 1 was to introduce the characters and establish solid relationships, especially between Merlin-Arthur, Merlin-Gaius, and Arthur-Uther. Other than the revelation of Arthur's birth and the introduction of Lancelot and Mordred, there wasn't much of plot importance.

Season 2's strongest story arcs for me were the budding romance between Arthur and Gwen, and Arthur's maturing. I know that another major plot point was supposed to be Morgana's turn towards evil, but I just don't find Katie McGrath a very convincing actress, and I find Morgause's character seriously underdeveloped. I was also much more moved with the Season 2 finale (they finally did something useful with the dragon!) than with season 1's.

Season 3 started off weak IMO, but picked up its stride after introducing Gwaine. Again the Arthur-Gwen romance played a major role, but I thought this season didn't handle it with as much subtlety as season 2 did, and there were some major missed opportunities to really push the characters into another emotional level...that left me rather disappointed. However, the finale was quite good, and I'm glad to see that they're finally moving towards an Arthur who openly disobeys Uther, a recognizable Round Table, and a clearly evil Morgana. Things are FINALLY set up to move somewhere. The most disappointing aspect to me, though, is the fact that Merlin still insists on keeping his magic a secret. I think that plot-line has been stretched beyond belief, by this point.

Now...to the Arthurian texts! I'll touch on a few of the TV series' most interesting adaptations from the canonical texts.

MERLIN'S ORIGINS: In the BBC series, Merlin is the son of a human peasant woman, Hunith (where the hell did they get that?) and the exiled "dragonlord" Balinor (revealed in S2 finale The Last Dragonlord). Anyone who has read Malory might immediately try to make connections with Sir Balin of "Balin and Balan" fame. Here are the connections I came up with, which are tenuous at best. Balinor, like Balin, begin by displeasing their king in some way and both are persecuted for it. Balinor practices the "magic" of speaking to dragons and is condemned to death for it, while Balin is imprisoned for killing Arthur's cousin. When Balin is released, he proves his virtue by drawing a sword from a scabbard, which only a very special knight can draw (not even Arthur is successful). The owner of this sword - a maiden from Avalon - predicts that he will use the sword to strike a most dolorous stroke and kill the one he loves best. As we know, Balin's dolorous stroke sets up the Grail Quest for later, but - more importantly - he kills his brother Balan unknowingly and fulfills the maiden's prophecy. In doing so, Balin sets himself up as a something of a Cain figure...and is probably remembered best for his rash decisions.

The show's Balinor is nothing like this Balin; in fact, he's quite the opposite - a stand-up kind of guy who values his family, but is forced to flee from them by a tyrannical king. Instead of becoming fratricidal, Balinor loses his "brothers" (fellow dragonlords...and also the dragons themselves, who are mercilessly killed under Uther's command), and thus becomes a victim of fratricide instead of a perpetrator. In Malory, Balin's story is a tragedy, and he is not redeemed, but Balinor has a chance to redeem himself and strike back at Uther by passing on his knowledge to the only kin he has left, his son Merlin.

When Balinor dies, unknown and unmourned, we are traumatized by the injustice of it all. This points, I think, to the fact that Balin was one of the first knights in Camelot to prove his virtue (by drawing the maiden's sword) and yet was never sworn into the Round Table. Balin, like Balinor, remains something of an outsider all his life, and it culminates in tragedy. The show retains none of Malory's original maiden-prophet, sword, dolorous stroke, or even brother, but there are ghosts of the original themes in Balinor.

That's basically the nature of much of the show's intertextuality. I've noticed that the writers seem to take names from the Arthur stories and simplify them, making them either good or evil. If they're the former, then they are often innocents persecuted by Uther's irrational hatred of magic. Any original guilt they had in Malory (or other canonical texts) are projected onto Uther. Did anyone else feel this way?

In other Arthurian texts (Geoffrey of Monmouth and Robert de Boron), Merlin is the child of a demonic father (an incubus or Satan himself) and a human woman (a princess or a virgin). So, the BBC series kind-of keeps up this tradition by making Merlin's mother a human (though one in the wrong social class, a peasant) and making his father somewhat supernatural, though by no means demonic. The Druids refer to Merlin as "Emrys," one of the oldest Welsh names for Merlin, and one which pre-dates Merlin's association with Arthur. So again, the show makes small nods to some source texts.

I suspect that if the BBC's Merlin is based on any particular text, it might be Robert de Boron's Merlin. This text presents Merlin as the product of a devil and a virgin (a perverted Immaculate Conception) and sets Merlin up as something of an AntiChrist figure. But his evil destiny is thwarted when Merlin's mother confesses herself, and has her son baptized, thus freeing him from the Devil's influence...however his supernatural origins give him his magical powers. Although the show's Merlin uses magic only for good, the series keeps showing us that magic can easily corrupt people, and that Uther has good reason to fear it. Another connection between BBC's Merlin and Robert de Boron is that RdB presents Merlin (surprisingly) as something of a trickster figure, with an obvious sense of humor....doesn't that sound just like the BBC Merlin?

Most early source texts focus on Merlin's powers of prophecy, instead of other types of magic. (There are any number of texts which are purely "prophecies of Merlin"...I'm trying to find the Italian version to use for my language exam.) The show really de-emphasizes this aspect, and it seems Merlin's prophetic powers are only explicitly shown in one episode (The Crystal Cave...one of my favorites.) Instead, the show spreads the prophetic powers between Morgana and the Great Dragon. The BBC show does this a lot, displacing what is originally one character's aspects onto someone else in the show.

ARTHUR'S FAMILY TREE: Okay, this is seriously effed up. Anyone even vaguely familiar with Arthurian texts knows Arthur's genealogy is really complex, and what the show does with it messes it up even more.

Let's start with Uther. In the texts (drawing mostly from Malory), Uther Pendragon is at war with Duke Gorlois of Cornwall and falls in lust with Gorlois' wife, Igraine. Uther begs Merlin to help him sleep with Igraine, and Merlin fulfills his wish by turning Uther into Gorlois' likeness while the Duke is off at war. Uther thus sleeps with Igraine and begets an illegitimate Arthur on her. When he is born, Uther and Merlin must spirit him away and have him grow up in disguise, as a peasant, to keep him safe from Uther's enemies.

The Uther of the BBC series legitimately loved and married Igraine, who bore him the legitimate prince Arthur. As if that didn't create a dynamic already fundamentally different from the texts, the writers then added a completely gratuitous additional storyline...Igraine was barren and couldn't get pregnant, so Uther begged his sorceress friend, Nimueh to magic him a child. But according to Nimueh's "Old Religion", such powerful magic has a price...a life for a life. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: When Arthur is born, the price is that Igraine must die. Uther cannot deal with the consequences his actions, and thus begins a crusade against all magic in vengeance. So Uther's dirty little secret is his hypocrisy...his beloved son was born of magic, yet he trains him to hate everything magical. Personally, I don't particularly care for this rewriting because it strips Arthur of his egalitarian upbringing. What separated Arthur from other kings of old (in the texts) was his childhood amongst the people, one which gave him an insider's understanding of his people. This Arthur must learn such lessons from others (like Gwen and Merlin). It's not as effective a plotline, IMO, but given the crappy script, I think the actors (James, Morgan, and Coulby) carry it off pretty well.

This is revealed to us (but not Arthur or Merlin) in S1's episode Excalibur, probably the best episode of season 1. One of the best moments (and one which showed the writers had done their homework) was when Uther takes Arthur's place in mortal combat against the Black Knight, when he discovers that his old enemy Nimueh is back. Not only does it play on the recurring motif of disguised knights, but it's an ironic moment for those who know Malory. To me, it played like a redemptive moment for Uther. It seemed like an inversion of Uther's evil moment (assuming Gorlois' identity to commit adultery)...instead of taking on his enemy's aspect to commit sin, this Uther takes on his son's place to sacrifice himself in payment of a past sin. It was one of the VERY FEW ennobling moments for Uther.

The S2 episode Sins of the Father reveals all of this to Arthur and Merlin. As I've said before, it's a fantastic episode, but the ending was beyond disappointing. I really expected an irreconciliable emotional chasm to open up between Uther and Arthur once Arthur discovers the secret of his birth. Instead of allowing the implications of the discovery to truly take their emotional toll, the writers reset things to the status quo. WHY?

I wonder if it was simply a case of bad planning and bad timing. I think the writers made a big mistake in revealing the secret of Arthur's birth before the secret of Morgana's. If I was a writer for this series (IF ONLY!! :D), I would've revealed Morgana's secret first and had her enlist Arthur to her cause, trying to turn Arthur against his father. If the writers had done this, it could've really brought out the ambiguities in BOTH Uther's and Morgana's perspectives...and really really forced Arthur to find his moral compass somewhere between the two extremes of Uther's anti-magic crusade and Morgana's pro-magic vengeance. Then and only then would I have revealed the devastating secret of Arthur's birth, and caused an irreparable schism between Arthur and Uther...That opens up the door for any number of interesting revisions. Would Arthur go so far as to kill his own father? Would he be justified? One could also work in an incestuous attraction to Morgana or Morgause in there, and thereby remain true to the legend. Also, it would bring about a tolerance for magic much earlier in the series, and perhaps allow Merlin to come out to Arthur. This would also have fascinating implications for Uther's fate...if he was allowed to live, he would have to truly change his ways to hope for any sort of reconciliation with his children. AND...for me, the major upside of this would be to get rid of Uther's really REALLY tedious anti-magic crusade, which has gone on far too long...I honestly think this is one of the factors which is keeping Merlin's character from developing in a truly compelling way.

MORGANA'S FAMILY TREE: Since the character of Morgan le Fay is much more archetypal than Arthur's (both the Welsh and Irish have goddesses who are analogues of Morgan), it's harder to trace a solid genealogy for her. But if we go with Malory: Morgan is the youngest daughter of Gorlois of Cornwall and his wife Igraine. She has two older sisters, Morgause and Elaine. Her parentage makes her half-sister to Arthur on her mother's side.

The BBC series keeps this idea of half-sisterhood to Arthur, but they displace it to the father's side. Here, Morgana (as revealed in S3 The Crystal Cave) is the daughter of Uther and Vivian (wife of Gorlois). Before this big revelation, she is raised to believe that she is the legitimate daughter of Gorlois and Vivian, making her heir apparent to the throne of Cornwall (a topic which is never addressed). We're told Uther sent his friend Gorlois into battle, where he died...though we're never told if Vivian still lives. Late in season 1 (To Kill the King), we learn that Morgana blames Uther for the death of her father...she thinks Uther deliberately sent Gorlois to his death. Uther then takes the opportunity to sleep with Vivian, whom (according to him) was "lonely". The way Uther tells it makes it sound like he was merely trying to comfort a lonely widow, but we don't whether or not this is actually the case. The alternative is, of course, something more similar to Malory...Uther lusts after Vivian at first sight and abuses his kingly powers to sleep with her.

If we compare the show's version to Malory's, a couple of interesting features stand out: 1) BBC's Uther DOES commit adultery like Malory's, but there is no magic involved. 2) The product of Uther's adultery is not Arthur, but Morgana, creating a potential sibling rivalry over Camelot's throne. 3) The way the BBC Uther handles his illegitimate children is quite different from Malory's. Instead of disowning her completely and having her grow up in disguise, Uther allows his guilt to take control. Presumably wracked with guilt over both his sin and his friend Gorlois' death, he takes Morgana under his wing as his "ward" and raises her like a daughter.

Someone with an interest in psychoanalysis (not me) should do an analysis of Uther's character, because I think it's absolutely FASCINATING the way the show sets up his relationship with his two children. But because it's a "family-friendly" show, BBC refuses to allow these ideas of adultery to pop up too much...which is a shame since it could take the Arthurian legend into an unprecedented emotional plane. Especially since they've got the magnificent Anthony Head playing him. The way they've handled him is such a waste of talent...:frown5::frown2::banghead:

Think about it: both Arthur and Morgana are born out of Uther's sin (magic, adultery) and both children's births result in death (Igraine and Gorlois). Yet Uther treats both children very very differently. And sometimes his behavior seems contradictory. For example, even though Arthur is the legitimate child and heir, Uther keeps him at arm's length and very rarely shows him any approval. And though Morgana is the bastard child, Uther seems (at times) to love her more than he does Arthur - at least he is much more emotionally demonstrative towards his daughter than towards his son. I'm sure there's something about self-punishment that a psychoanalyst could pull out.

In some ways Uther is a great father. Both of his children are remarkably well-adjusted given the tragedy of their origins (probably solely because Uther does not tell them). Though Arthur starts off as a pompous prick, that seems to be his only major flaw. Otherwise, he is the perfect prince...an adept warrior, a decent diplomat, an upholder of the chivalric code, and a just leader. When the show begins, Morgana too is surprisingly compassionate, has an innate sense of right and wrong, and is not afraid to voice her disagreements against Uther. But it is ultimately Uther's secrecy which begins turning his children against him. So Uther's secrecy is double-edged...a facet which did NOT get played on enough in the series.

I'm SO disappointed with the way Morgana was handled. The writers had a chance to make her so much more sympathetic than they did. Had they done so, I think we would've been much much more torn about who was in the right and who in the wrong. I thought the ending of season 3 was okay, but it had the potential to be so much more. The writers used Morgana's parentage as no more than an EXCUSE to put her on the throne, but had they played it with more tact and fewer sinister smiles, I can imagine many audience members supporting her queenship. The show could've been transformed into a truly unprecedented exploration of morality. Instead, they made Morgana a pawn of the unspeakably predictable Morgause.

I wonder how much of this is dumbed down to be family-friendly, and how much of it is just sheer idiocy. Just because Morgana is a bastard child, can we not make her a real person? Or is it because she's female? The Arthurian legends (like nearly all medieval literature) were based on a patriarchy, inherently making them misogynistic. This show had a chance to change that a bit, but didn't really. Instead, it made 3 of the 4 major female characters into evil characters, fitting them nicely into the "witch" stereotype and not much more.

GUINEVERE'S ORIGINS AND ABDUCTION: In most of the later Arthurian texts, Guinevere is a princess (duh), daughter of Leodegrance. I can't think of any texts which actually name her mother, which I find interesting - considering that so many of the female protagonists find such importance through their matrilinear bloodlines.

Obviously, the BBC's Gwen reflects the most radical change in the show. Guinevere is not only a peasant, but also a racial minority. Considering the etymology of Guinevere's name, there seems to be a great deal of ham-fisted irony here. "Gwen" means "white" in Welsh...so it seems a little insensitive to make her BOTH ethnically black and a blacksmith's daughter. (What do you think? Is this deliberate? Or are the writers ignorant douches?)

One of the inevitable casualties of rewriting Gwen as a commoner in the show is stripping her father of his importance in the legend. In Malory and later Tennyson, Leodegrance is one of the few kings to accept Arthur as the new king. And the Arthur-Leodegrance relationship showed Arthur's notions of equality...when Leodegrance's lands are invaded by another king, Arthur comes to his aid...and Leodegrance rewards him by giving him Guinevere's hand in marriage. (Okay, I definitely prefer BBC's version.) But one of other key functions of Leodegrance is that he gives the Round Table to Arthur, as a wedding gift. Given their relationship as peers, it's SO fitting that the Round Table comes from him. But of course all that poetic justice is lost in the show...and Guinevere's father is reduced to a likeable but bland blacksmith named Tom.

Surprisingly, Tom DOES contribute something to Arthur's court. He makes really nice swords...and his best one, with the help of a dragon, eventually becomes Excalibur. (I can't decide whether or not the writers did this to make up for the loss of the Round Table. Thoughts?) But Tom's death is completely botched, in comparison to the legends. In BBC, he's wrongfully executed by Uther for practicing magic. But in Malory, he is a loyal follower of Uther and is actually ENTRUSTED with the Round Table by him. So, Tom is another casualty of Uther's ridiculous crusade...not only a literal casualty, but the casualty of a potentially interesting character.

BTW...I have no idea where Gwen's brother, Elyan came from. As far as I know there is absolutely NO textual evidence for him. When I first heard his name, I thought the writers might be shooting for some sort of gender-inverted Elaine character (since they rarely introduce characters who aren't at least partially related to the legends). But it certainly has not played out that way.

Besides Guinevere's adulterous affair with Lancelot, her most well-known episode is her abduction, usually by a knight whose name begins with an M (Meleagaunt, Melwas, sometimes even Mordred). Of course, this usually happens much later in the plot when she is queen and her relationship with Lancelot is well-established. Depending on which version you read, either Arthur, Lancelot, or Gawain(!) successfully rescues her.

But the show displaces her abduction to a much earlier time period, in the S2 episode Lancelot and Guinevere. In order to have the abduction make sense, the show must posit the original target as Lady Morgana, instead of Guinevere, her maid. (This is slightly ironic because in some texts, it is Mordred - Morgana's nephew/son - who is responsible for the kidnapping.) And here the kidnapper is not a horny M knight, but Hengist - a bandit who merely wants Morgana/Guinevere for ransom.

HENGIST?? was my gut reaction. WTF does he have to do with Guinevere's abduction? I remembered him only as a name mentioned in Beowulf (completely unrelated), but when I looked him up, his name also came up as a minor character in Geoffrey of Monmouth. So yes, Hengist is actually an Arthurian character, though a very early and very minor one. In Geoffrey, Hengist and his brother Horsa are Saxon mercenary-types hired by the bad (pre-Arthurian) king Vortigern to help him fight his foes. In other words, Hengist is kind of a foreign threat to the unification of England. In the BBC series, he doesn't seem particularly Saxon or even foreign, but he does wear fur and use evil tactics like siccing his nasty man-eating mole-like creatures on his victims. Now that I think about it, his gladiator habit (pitting warriors against his creatures in a cage for sport) does make him seem kind of Roman, and of course Rome was a traditional enemy of Arthur's.

But the interesting part is, of course, that BBC Gwen has not one but two rescuers...the rival love interests of Arthur and Lancelot. Arthur's quest to save her is the more traditional depiction. In the earliest versions of Guinevere's abduction, there is a mythic overtone, since Guinevere (like Morgana) began as a goddess/sovereignty figure...in other words, her well-being was tied to the land's fertility. Some scholars even posit that Guinevere was a Persephone figure early on, kidnapped by Hades and thus bringing a winter wasteland to the land, until her rescue brought back spring. In the earliest versions, Guinevere's kidnapper takes her to the symbolic Otherworld, which in Celtic mythology usually means crossing a body a water. This BBC version features a different kind of crossing...instead of crossing an ocean or a river, Arthur and Merlin must cross the subterranean labyrinth of the man-eating moles (whatever they're called). But that's as far as the allegory extends. There is no wasteland and no spring.

Instead, the show concentrates on the complicated tangle of emotions between Arthur, Gwen, and Lancelot. In some of the source texts, when Guinevere is successfully rescued, she returns to Camelot only to be tried, condemned, and burned at the stake for her adultery. In the show, the exact opposite happens. During her abduction, there is a threat of adultery (or unfaithfulness to Arthur) when Lancelot appears. But once she is rescued, Lancelot recognizes the relationship between Arthur/Gwen, and sacrifices himself in order to save their relationship. Instead of punishing her for adultery, the show makes adultery impossible and goes back to developing the Arthur-Gwen romance. Again, I don't think that the writers actually knew how they were interacting with the abduction texts here...it's probably pure coincidence that they produced something as analyzable as this.

Hmmm, I didn't expect to write this much, but I guess I had a lot to say. :D :D I'll be back with similar (but shorter, I promise) analyses on more minor characters/things: Morgause, Nimue, Mordred, Lancelot, Gawain, Percival, the Lady of the Lake, Taliesin, the Fisher King, Excalibur, the Grail, and Avalon.

[sithkittie]

Season by season for me - Season one didn't seem to take itself too seriously, and I liked it. Season two thickened the plot, though Morgause... really? That's the best you could do? Season three came along, and there were hillarious episodes and some things, like the Fisher King and Gawain (*heart!*) that I absolutely loved, but dissociating it from all of the other Arthurian stories, there were plot holes you could fit a mack truck through, and the biggest one was Morgana. It really felt like the writers decided in season three that she was Uther's daughter, disregarding what they'd set up in seasons one and two. I forget which episode it was, but Uther threatened to kill her after he locked her in the dungeon, something to the effect of "I made a promise to your father that I would protect you, but if you cross me again, I will break that promise." That's not something a father says to his daughter. If the writers did know that Morgana was Uther's daughter, they certainly did not tell Anthony Head. In that scene in specific, but also in a few of the other tense scenes between the two, his body language and tone were not a father's, no matter how angry he might be. I really, really don't believe that part of the plot.

The other big hole that I really hope they do something with in season four (but I somehow doubt they will) is the cup of life. In season one Nimueh said the world had to stay balanced. (Side question! How common is this theme in European myth? It's everywhere in Asia, but that caught me by surprise there.) By the end of that whole thread, it was balanced. In season three when the cup showed up with the druids, a whole other aspect of its powers was revealed, which I'm fine with but there was absolutely no balance in it. Sir Liam was supposed to die. He was at the point of death and the cup brought him back to life. What was the price paid? And was it just me, or did anybody notice the conspicuous non-mentioning of the cup at the end of the finale?

One thing I really want to know is when did Arthurian literature (film and whatnot included) switch from being deeply Christian to pro- or anti-magic? What I mean is, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Malory's Le Morte, and Tennyson's Idylls (not very far into that one but I've already seen mentions), Christ, church, and duty to God are constantly mentioned. The conflict is between Arthur's Christian kingdom and Saracens or other "heathens." Knights are converted as they join Arthur's court (am I right here? I seem to remember this happening in Malory's book). In modern incarnations, since we're on the topic and it's what I can think of off the top of my head, the BBC version in particular, the conflict is Uther's almost insane (and as mentioned before, hypocritical) hatred of magic. It probably has something to do with sensitivities to the audience, but Uther's kingdom, and Arthur, really seem to have no religion whereas in the older stories, they very much do. So my question is, when did that change happen? I realize the original Welsh stories probably had no mention of Christianity at all and it was a result of the time the stories were written, but I'm curious about that second switch (also, my guess is, a result of the time the stories were written).


This is revealed to us (but not Arthur or Merlin) in S1's episode Excalibur, probably the best episode of season 1. One of the best moments (and one which showed the writers had done their homework) was when Uther takes Arthur's place in mortal combat against the Black Knight, when he discovers that his old enemy Nimueh is back. Not only does it play on the recurring motif of disguised knights, but it's an ironic moment for those who know Malory. To me, it played like a redemptive moment for Uther. It seemed like an inversion of Uther's evil moment (assuming Gorlois' identity to commit adultery)...instead of taking on his enemy's aspect to commit sin, this Uther takes on his son's place to sacrifice himself in payment of a past sin. It was one of the VERY FEW ennobling moments for Uther.

First, I got major Green Knight vibes from that episode, which I loved, but that's a bit aside from my point. I do appreciate the disguised knights play, don't get me wrong, but that's all the connection I see to Malory. How is Tristan even fitting into this family nuttiness? Anyway, I know Uther was pretty much hated by everyone, which is fitting because in the BBC version everybody hates Uther too, but I do wish he was less flat. You're right, Anthony Head is a good actor, and they really didn't give him much to work with. I'd have liked him to have had a few more of these moments.

On the same note, I think the only characters who aren't completely flat are Merlin and Gawain (who is officially my favorite knight in the BBC version, by the way). Yeah, they're all archetypes, but that doesn't mean they have to be so two dimensional. Arthur's only flaw is that he's an arrogant prat (new favorite word). Uther really has no redeeming qualities. Morgana, for all the plot holes, had only a few moments of hesitation before turning into a cackling villain. Morgause.... she's a plot device, that's pretty much it. Gwen doesn't feel like she has much more depth to her than Morgana. Merlin had a few moments where he was cracking, and I appreciated that. The episode in season three (Crystal Cave if I'm not mistaken) when he nearly killed Morgana seemed like some character development since his morals were really put to the test there and he didn't cave out of guilt but rather out of sympathy for his friends. That and his abuse of the dragon show another facet of his character, but I almost don't believe his relationship with the dragon. Sometimes he has me convinced that he's a living, independent character, but a lot of times he feels more like he's just being swept up in the plot.


it's probably pure coincidence that they produced something as analyzable as this.

I would say you're not wrong. I'm rather impressed that you pulled that much out to analyze.

And that's all for tonight or I'm not going to be conscious for work in the morning.

[Wilde woman]

Re: Morgana. Yeah, I also got the feeling that the writers made this decision in the middle of the series. Remember the hints of romance between Arthur and Morgana in the early episodes of season 1? I think the writers had originally been planning to do something with this, but then decided halfway through that Morgana and Arthur are actually half-siblings, so that would be incestuous...a no-no for a family show. And from about halfway through season 1 onwards, there was no more sexual tension between Morgana and Arthur. I agree that her parentage was not handled well at all by the writers, BUT I have to say that what they did with it is one of the most interesting revisions to the legend in the entire show.


The other big hole that I really hope they do something with in season four (but I somehow doubt they will) is the cup of life. In season one Nimueh said the world had to stay balanced. (Side question! How common is this theme in European myth? It's everywhere in Asia, but that caught me by surprise there.)

YES! I have my own rant on the Cup of Life/Holy Grail which I'll post a bit later, but I wanted to answer your side question first. I think you're right that the whole idea of cosmic balance is very Eastern, but there are definitely some similar ideas in Western culture. The big one that I can think of (because I recently wrote a paper on it) is the Classical/medieval conception of the balance of the four humors within the human body. And of course the justice system is based on Hammurabi's code of an eye-for-an-eye. The medieval cosmos was based on Christian theology...I'm thinking specifically of Dante...and it was made perfectly balanced by God. I cannot think of any specific event which disrupts this balance and requires fixing. There is the concept of Fortune's wheel, which sometimes has a karma-like aspect to it, but that's the closest Western idea I can think of. Nimueh's whole life-for-a-life thing seems rather specific, and I cannot really think of a particular culture which believed that, though it wouldn't surprise me if it existed. So this was a long-winded way of saying I don't really know the answer to your question. :D


One thing I really want to know is when did Arthurian literature (film and whatnot included) switch from being deeply Christian to pro- or anti-magic?

Well, I don't think you can separate the two; with the rise of Christianity came a deep suspicion of "magic" or paganism, since Christian missionaries obviously wanted to convert people away from these older forms of mysticism. So are you asking when Christianity came into the Arthurian texts?

Christianity is already quite prevalent in Geoffrey of Monmouth (1138), the earliest complete Arthurian biography, although there are still obviously many many instances of magic in it. Magic is never characterized as specifically good or evil and you've got both good and evil magicians (Merlin vs. Pellitus, for example). Anything pre-Galfridian obviously has less overt references to Christianity, but even in the really early texts (c. 6th-10th century) there are already hints of Christianity. There are a number of saints' lives written before Geoffrey which feature Arthurian material. If you think about it from a historical standpoint, it makes sense. The heyday of Arthurian literature didn't really begin until Geoffrey in the 12th century, which puts it smack dab in the middle of the Crusades.

But I don't think Arthurian literature really became Christian "propaganda" until the stories of the Holy Grail were connected to it. I'm pretty sure that started with Robert de Boron, in the early 13th century. Of course there are earlier mythological archetypes for the Holy Grail which have been around forever, but the vessel didn't really turn Christian until the Joseph of Arimathea myth. Even the early Perceval stories (Chretien and the Welsh redaction of it) feature a grail-like vessel, but it's not explicitly made out to be Christian.

So yeah, I'd say 13th century. Is that helpful? All of the texts you mentioned - SGGK, Malory, and definitely Tennyson - were written well after the 13th century. I cannot speak with any authority about the shift in Arthurian films, though my guess would be that the films have always involved Christianity.


On the same note, I think the only characters who aren't completely flat are Merlin and Gawain (who is officially my favorite knight in the BBC version, by the way). Yeah, they're all archetypes, but that doesn't mean they have to be so two dimensional. Arthur's only flaw is that he's an arrogant prat (new favorite word). Uther really has no redeeming qualities. Morgana, for all the plot holes, had only a few moments of hesitation before turning into a cackling villain. Morgause.... she's a plot device, that's pretty much it. Gwen doesn't feel like she has much more depth to her than Morgana. Merlin had a few moments where he was cracking, and I appreciated that.

Really? I actually think that Arthur is the most well-developed character in the show. Out of all the entire cast, I think he's grown the most and in the most believable way. Yes, his only flaw is his arrogance (and perhaps his blind devotion to his father), but I think they've been really exploring that flaw and breaking it down in his relationships with Guinevere and Merlin. There have been a number of episodes where he's embarrassed and forced to show some humility, and though he's clearly still the master in the master-servant relationship with Merlin, he's frequently shown a willingness to lay his life on the line for Merlin.

After Arthur, Merlin and Gwen - IMO - are the most developed characters. I like Gwen, but I agree that the writers play on her goodness/compassion/emotional vulnerability more than necessary as a way to develop Arthur. I think it's hard for the writers to make such a good character more well-rounded. In her defense, though, she does have her moments of sass and wit. I agree with you mostly about Morgana and Morgause (though Morgana is IMO the biggest missed opportunity EVER). For the most part, I hate Uther too, though there have been a couple of scenes in which I actually feel for him. I think one of Anthony Head's best performances was at the graveyard with Morgana in S1 To Kill the King:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILEtQ-tre0g

I really felt for both Uther and Morgana in this scene, starting around 1:05. It's one of the only times he admits he was wrong...and I thought Uther was slowly going to change for the better from this episode on. But nope! The writers pressed the reset button again!


First, I got major Green Knight vibes from that episode, which I loved, but that's a bit aside from my point. I do appreciate the disguised knights play, don't get me wrong, but that's all the connection I see to Malory. How is Tristan even fitting into this family nuttiness?

YES! Before I go on my SGGK spiel, let's talk about Tristan. At first, I thought the Tristan genealogy was laughable (and it still is), but the more I thought about it, the more I saw the (very facile) logic behind it. The key is Cornwall. In the mythos, King Mark (Tristan's uncle) is the king of Cornwall, meaning Tristan is Cornish as well. This sets up the genealogy for the BBC show. Gaius explains that Tristan is the brother of Igraine, who (in Malory) is married to the Duke of Cornwall, Gorlois. So it seems like the BBC writers were trying to establish the familial relationship based on Mark's and Gorlois' common rule of Cornwall. (Interestingly, the writers created Tristan's crest from the correct colors of Cornwall's flag - black and silver.) The show goes on to say that Tristan blamed Uther for Igraine's death, forcing him into a challenge of single combat, in which Uther killed Tristan, but Tristan cursed Uther with his dying breath. (In some of the older texts, there is a rivalry between the Cornwall and Camelot factions...Mark vs. Arthur, and Mark eventually destroys Camelot after Arthur falls.) Of course Tristan is most famous for his affair with Isolde. Here, it seems like the BBC show is taking that romance and making it a devotion to his sister, Igraine (also an "I" name), which eventually causes his death. A very loose adaptation to say the least.

But all my speculation is blown out of the water if we consider the name the show actually gives him: Tristan du Bois. Bois means "forest" in French, but this genealogy makes no sense because 1) Tristan is not French in ANY of the source texts. He's always had Celtic origins. 2) as far as I can tell, Bois does not refer to a specific place in France nor can I think of any Arthurian characters with a similar surname. BUT, "du Bois" does make a possible reference to the Green Knight, who was sometimes interpreted as the popular folk character, the Green Man or the Wild Man of the woods.

Morgause: I LOVED her introduction to the show. She’s a female knight! How cool is that? (There are a couple of medieval texts I can think of featuring female knights, so the BBC is not completely original in doing that, but it’s interesting to see Morgause as the knight-sorceress. NB: By far the most famous female knight comes much later…in the Faerie Queene’s Britomart.) The show used the disguised-knight motif really well when introducing her character. I also really liked that she initially seemed to have a code of honor…challenging Arthur according to the rules of chivalry, defeating him fair and square in battle, and counting on his honor to make him agree to her challenge. She is shown to be Arthur’s equal in courage (she won’t withdraw from the duel), skill, and honor…she even salutes Uther after she’s defeated Arthur, though it’s Uther (and not Arthur) that she hates most. It was a little disappointing that after her introduction (in S2 Sins of the Father) that she lost this sense of honor, and resorted to a crafty conniving witch.

Given that this is a family show, this is a completely unreasonable desire on my part, but I wish BBC had pushed the gender-bending potential of Morgause a little further. As both a knight and a sorceress, she could’ve been made quite androgynous, which would’ve added to the unsettling effect she produced so well in Sins of the Father. But of course, they make her blonde and beautiful…as well as evil. Predictably she plays the role of traitorous seductress with Cenred, and she’s not developed much beyond that.

Morgause’s introduction drew on a completely unrelated episode from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Did anyone else pick up on this? Her challenge to Arthur was identical to the Green Knight’s – a beheading challenge to prove Arthur’s courage! And although it’s taken completely out of context, there are vestiges of the important themes in SGGK in this episode. First, there’s the system of exchange. As the challenger, Morgause proves herself worthy of Arthur’s interest by defeating him in battle, and secures his word that he will answer her challenge. It’s a pretty nifty exchange of knights’ words, and a play on Gawain’s trouthe in SGGK. The theme of keeping to one’s word holds true throughout the episode, and Uther betrays it at the end when he lies about Igraine (and you absolutely hate him for it, esp. since his son has kept so honorably to his word throughout).

The writers even picked up a little on the time element. In SGGK, the Green Knight arrives on the New Year’s feast to challenge Arthur, and requires Gawain to fulfill his challenge exactly one year later. There is definitely a mythic reading on the cycle of life and death within the year here, but that is mostly ignored in the BBC version. Here, instead Morgause arrives during a knighting ceremony, one in which Uther sets up Arthur as THE standard of chivalry for the newly-dubbed knights to follow. After his father says this, Arthur cannot honorably back out of his challenge with Morgause. Morguase requires Arthur to answer her challenge in “three days’ time,” a period of time not only associated with magic, but also with Easter – the Christian period of death and rebirth. Nice, right?

The writers take this pseudo-mystical touch a step further in a later scene in which Arthur watches Morgause preparing her white horse for travel, while she secretly magicks his horse. There’s a folk connection between Rhiannon, a Celtic goddess and the white horse, her avatar. Rhiannon is a sovereignty figure, meaning that she is connected to the land…and here it seems that the writers might have intended this scene to connect Morgause to nature, in order to hint at her brand of magic. At this point, we don’t know enough about her character to label her good or evil, and this connection to the land maintains this ambiguity nicely. (Again, I’m not certain whether or not the writers meant these horsey touches to refer to Rhiannon or sovereignty goddesses at all, but it seems to fit.)

To take the SGGK metaphor even further, the writers pick up on Gawain’s sense of being lost as he begins his quest. Arthur repeatedly tells Morgause and Merlin that he doesn’t know where the challenge will take place, and it is only through Arthur’s magicked horse that he finds her. In SGGK, Gawain wanders in the perilous wilderness of the Northwest Midlands, until he accidentally stumbles into Bertilak’s kingdom, while Arthur is only guided by his magicked horse through the hostile wilderness of Odin’s kingdom. And then (surprise surprise!) the horse takes Arthur to the Lake of Avalon, which he crosses to find Morgause’s kingdom (a symbolic Otherworld, just as Bertilak’s kingdom functions in SGGK).

For passing the beheading challenge/test of bravery (at which point the similarities to SGGK end), Morgause gives Arthur one wish. This plays on the popular medieval motif of the rash boon – a wish granted by a magical lady to her knight-lover – and it usually results in harsh consequences for the knight, because he often makes an unwise wish, which he is then granted. Arthur, of course, asks for information about his mother…and doesn’t like what he learns. In fact, the news causes him to almost kill Uther.

When Morgause gave Morgana her bracelet (with the “Great House of Gorlois” emblem on it), it immediately made me think of the tokens exchanged in SGGK. First I thought it might be related to Gawain’s pentangle, but neither the coloring nor the design nor the function made sense. It does seem to fulfill the a similar function to the ring given by Lady Bertilak to Gawain…a circular piece of jewelry which acts as a sign of troth between the giver and receiver. It is this bracelet which reappears throughout the series as a reminder of Morgana’s loyalties, which begin to shift towards Morgause.

Incidentally, an earlier episode in season 1 (Excalibur) also had some pretty definite allusions to SGGK. Instead of being a Green Knight, it’s a mysterious magical Black Knight who rudely enters Uther’s court in a very Green Knight-ish way. Instead of dismounting from his horse, he rides straight into the hall during Arthur’s coming-of-age celebration and challenges him by throwing down his gauntlet. As in SGGK, Arthur is too stunned to accept the challenge and another knight (Gawain in SGGK, here; Owain…LOL!) accepts it to protect Arthur. From thereon out, the episode loses any connection to SGGK.

Tangent: I think the writers of this show must watch Doctor Who. There's one AMAZING moment in Excalibur which seems like a direct rip-off of a famous moment in Doctor Who. It involves an awesome shot of a horse and rider jumping through a window into the court. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT5YJeogWfw&feature=relatedStart at 1:03

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yXqVnqLYyYStart at 2:08

One last thing about Morgause. I’m curious about her parentage. In Malory, she is full sister to Morgana, meaning she is the daughter of Gorlois and Igraine. In this BBC version, it’s mentioned several times by several different people that she’s only Morgana’s half-sister, and it’s unclear through which parent she’s related to Morgause. That means that Morgause either has to be the daughter of Uther and some woman or Vivian and some man. However, she seems to know a whole lot about Igraine, which might imply that she’s her daughter…but that would mean Uther is her father, and make her a full-blooded sister to Arthur. That somehow doesn’t ring true for me, so I’ll withhold judgment until we actually discover her parentage.

Gwaine – Sithkittie, how do you figure that he's a round character? I feel like he hasn't played enough of a role to really get a handle on that yet. He's likeable, yeah, but I still think of him as a flat character. In fact, I still find most of the major knights (including Lancelot, Percival, and young Mordred) still woefully underdeveloped.

Any ideas on why Gawine's name is missing a syllable? I gave my Welsh origins theory in an earlier post…does anyone have any other ideas? I wonder if the writers are going to go the Galinda (from Wicked) route and “fix” his name later when someone important mispronounces it.

This is a good place to comment on the addition of the Rising Sun pub. I love this little insertion because it heralds the coming of a rising sun/son in Arthur and for Camelot. So imagine my surprise when Arthur meets Gwaine in a pub OTHER than the Rising Sun. (Gawain traditionally has powers that wax and wane with the sun.) Instead, they meet in an outlying pub called the Boar’s Head (WHY? The Rising Sun would’ve been so much more appropriate!). However, before Arthur and Merlin enter the pub, Merlin does make a comment about how bright the sun is today. Coincidence? (I prefer to think not…I’d like to think the writers had brains enough to put that one in deliberately.)


there were hillarious episodes and some things, like the Fisher King and Gawain (*heart!*) that I absolutely loved

Hmmmm, I like Gawain as well, but I hated the Fisher King episode (S3 Eye of the Phoenix). What did you like about it? Here's my take:

He bore almost no resemblance to the Fisher King of legend, and the show didn’t even attempt to explain his name. I’m most familiar with the Fisher King from Chretien’s Perceval, who resides at the Grail Castle and whose wounded thigh (a symbolic castration) has made his land a wasteland. He can only be healed if Perceval asks the correct question about the Grail procession, which features the Holy Grail amongst a number of other related treasures. Perceval fails this quest, and spends the rest of the text trying to return to the Grail Castle and fix the problem…but Chretien died before the work was ever finished, so nobody knows how it ends.

In the show, the quest is not for the Holy Grail, although the opening sequence…where Arthur is dressed all in white like an altar boy, and stands vigil all night in hopes of receiving a vision…is VERY reminiscent of Arthur’s actions in The Quest for the Holy Grail. Both Uther and Arthur make this out to be some sort of really important initiation which will help prove if Arthur is Ready to Be King. Yes, it’s that important. :rolleyes: But instead of looking for the Holy Grail, Arthur must bring back the Fisher King’s “golden trident”. Again :rolleyes: This seems to be the writers’ pathetic attempt to explain the name of the Fisher King by 1) somehow relating him to the Classical Poseidon (golden trident, my ***) and 2) making him a sort of water deity who somehow has access to the Lake of Avalon.

This seems like one of the worst instances EVER of name-dropping in the series. The parallels to the Holy Grail quest are clear, but everything just seems lacking. Because the series is so afraid to mention anything Christian, even Arthur’s “vision” is questionable. We’re never given the impression that his vision is from anything divine or mystical…he just seems to decide on a random quest in the morning, so we’re never given any real reason to believe in the Importance of the Mission. Besides this opening sequence, the name-dropping of the Fisher King, and the depiction of the wasteland, nothing else holds true with the legendary Fisher King, partially because they can’t possibly touch anything overtly Christian.

Besides this tenuous connection to the Fisher King, the rest of the episode seemed like a bunch of mixed metaphors referring either to the Faerie Queene or Lord of the Rings. The wasteland felt like Mordor, complete with the Dark Tower in the middle, surrounded by Nazgul (oops, I’m sorry, they’re wyverns :rolleyes:). And the retarded bracelet with the “eye of the phoenix” that Morgana gives to Arthur….tell me that isn’t a very badly-veiled allusion to Tolkein’s Ring.

When Arthur arrives at the bridge and is greeted by the dwarf Grettir (who is, btw, a perfectly tall character in an Icelandic saga), I had flashbacks to Spenser…what with his gibberish about needing Courage, Strength, and Magic to complete his quest. Apparently Arthur is Courage, Gwaine is Strength, and Merlin is Magic (how reductive). Arthur even pledges himself to Guinevere before undertaking his quest…there’s your symbolic fairy queen/sovereignty goddess.

I found this whole “eye of the phoenix” business ridiculous. Anyone who’s at all familiar with the phoenix legend knows that this portrayal is completely wrong. The phoenix is far more a symbol of fiery death and rebirth than a slow painful sapping death.

And finally the ending…in which Arthur succeeds in finding the trident, but is perfectly happy to LIE about how he completed his quest alone. WTF were you thinking, writers? The Arthur you’ve built up until now would never lie about something this important to him. This was one of the most disappointing episodes, IMO.

I'll be back with some final thoughts on the last few minor characters: Percival, Lady of the Lake, Taliesin, and...more importantly, Excalibur and the Holy Grail!

[Wilde woman]

Sorry for the dreaded double post, but I just found out that Starz is debuting a new Arthurian show this April, called Camelot. Just going by the trailer, it looks much more adult than Merlin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rg4Tnnjot4&feature=player_embedded

I'm SOOOOOOO excited! :banana:

[sithkittie]

About the anti-magic conflict, I probably could have worded that better. In Malory and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, magic and Christianity co-exist and nobody really calls attention to it. On the other hand, in the BBC show, Uther is trying to get rid of magic and Merlin (and one might assume Arthur later on) is trying to bring it back. I think rereading and watching some of the more modern versions would probably help me answer my own question, because a lot of them are just blurred together in my head.

Arthur has too many moments that make absolutely no sense and were just huge writer screw-ups, like the one at the end of the Fisher King episode when he's completely fine about lying about the quest. Those really undo a lot of his believability, though if those were gone then I would say, yeah, he would be a very well developed character.

I agree about Morgause's intro - that was pretty epic. Sadly they dropped the ball about the moment she took off her helmet. Those shoulders could not move around in plate armor and still heft a sword around with any accuracy. I didn't believe it. I did like her part in that episode, though I really don't see how it connects to the rest of her actions in the series. I really am not a fan of maniacal laughter while torching the world bad guys. And her relationship with Morgana during season three felt really contrived. Slightly off topic, wasn't it Morgan le Fay who sent the Green Knight to Camelot? Not that that has much to do with anything... just remembered that bit.

I have no clue on the spellings of names. I swear they change in every account. My guess would be the writers feel the same? :P

Why do I think Gawain is a round character? Partly because proportionate to the amount of screen time he has, he's shown multiple sides of himself as cliche as pretty much every side is. His father died in battle and he and his mother were abandoned by their lord so he has problems with nobility and refuses to be acknowledged as the son of a knight (have a problem with this bit of the world - more later). So instead he goes around taverns getting into drunken brawls, but he also answers Merlin's call for help, acknowledges that some nobles aren't worthless, and hints at recognizing the problem of his lifestyle. All facets very cliche, but they're visible and they don't abruptly veer off into a completely opposite direction. I would prefer, by far, a character who is based entirely off of cliches, like Gawain, to one who is a mix of cliche and script-writer's whim constantly resetting (Uther/Morgana) or breaking (Arthur and to an extent Merlin). I definitely agree that most of the knights (all of the knights even) are underdeveloped, but for the screen time they do get, Gawain, I feel, has the most personality.

Problem with the hereditary knighthood - those laws really didn't start until the later middle ages (and weren't necessarily strictly adhered to) which, granted, the military technology of the show mostly agrees with, but it's Arthur! I know big castles and plate armor look cool and all, but it's Arthur!! I haven't read enough to know how the stories usually go, and I wouldn't be surprised if they held to that same idea, but it gets an eye roll from me whenever it comes up.

The Fisher King is where sometimes ignorance is bliss. I've heard the name before, but I have nothing to reference him against. I don't have any illusions about the show's accuracy to older incarnations of anything in it. I enjoyed Gawain and Merlin's parts in finding and rescuing Arthur. I think they could have done more with Arthur's role, being as Merlin found him unconscious and about to be eaten, but I liked what it did for Merlin's character. The wyverns didn't obey him fully and he finally had to kill someone (though they could have done more with that, I don't think he would have been okay with it). The setting of the quest, I agree, was terrible. The eye of the phoenix would have been cooler if it had not been a complete rip off and had a different name... or if it sucked out his life and gave it to someone else or something not lame. They definitely could have found a better device for that bit.

So, a lot of this show, which I'm amused that we're actually analyzing here, for me is sifting out the really good scenes from the complete crap and piecing it together from there. I usually half watch it while I'm cross stitching or beading or something.

[Wilde woman]

Sorry for the late reply; class has just started for me this semester. I'm taking a course on the history of Arthur and Robin Hood, which I'm incredibly excited about. Since the class is cross-listed as an undergrad class, there was nothing terribly surprising or new in our list of texts. I've already read most of the Arthurian texts, except the historical stuff. (Hopefully, in the grad section, we can read some additional Arthurian texts which I haven't read before.) So I just started The Discovery of King Arthur by Geoffrey Ashe. It is ambitiously trying to trace the origins of the legend and answer the age-old question of whether or not there was a historical Arthur. I've only read the first chapter which basically summarizes the Arthurian sections of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and sets up a premise for Ashe's inquiry. But it sounds promising, so far!


About the anti-magic conflict, I probably could have worded that better. In Malory and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, magic and Christianity co-exist and nobody really calls attention to it. On the other hand, in the BBC show, Uther is trying to get rid of magic and Merlin (and one might assume Arthur later on) is trying to bring it back.

Oh, I see what you're asking. Quite frankly, I don't remember any specific Arthurian texts that take a hard anti-magic line. I honestly think that was something the BBC made up. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an Arthurian text with no magic...it just seems an integral part of the legend, even in texts which are dealing with the knights, instead of Arthur. Because of the genre of most Arthurian literature (at least the Middle English stuff) is in romance or chronicle form, magical elements are simply the norm. (Yeah, even though chronicles are technically supposed to be histories, a lot of them are quite fantastical.)

It was innovative of the BBC to add in this anti-magic element, but they're using it in a rather simplistic way...as pretty much a straight allegory for intolerance (racism, sexism, etc.) since they can't touch any of these topics head-on. But I think it would've worked better (and would be less tedious) if they'd done it with more subtlety.


I agree about Morgause's intro - that was pretty epic. Sadly they dropped the ball about the moment she took off her helmet.

Yes, I was talking to a friend about that. We both agreed that conflating her with the Green Knight was one of the few brilliant moments of the series. Oh, I also found out from her that the BBC consulted my boss, an Arthurian specialist, about the show. Obviously, they rejected his suggestions because when I asked him about Merlin, he was (justifiably) rather dismissive of it.


Slightly off topic, wasn't it Morgan le Fay who sent the Green Knight to Camelot?

Yes, you're right. I wonder if the BBC writers knew that. If so, it might be ironic that Morgause/Green Knight actually came to Camelot to see Morgana, not because she sent him. In other words, the BBC people inverted the relationship between Green Knight/Morgan. Instead of the Morgan commanding the Green Knight, this Green Knight/Morgause is in the commanding position, trying to get Morgana to join her. I wonder if this was done deliberately?


Problem with the hereditary knighthood - those laws really didn't start until the later middle ages (and weren't necessarily strictly adhered to) which, granted, the military technology of the show mostly agrees with, but it's Arthur! I know big castles and plate armor look cool and all, but it's Arthur!!

Agreed, but this is just one of the show's many historical inaccuracies. They're obviously simplifying lots of the complexities of the time period for the sake of the narrative...like with the anti-magic thing. There are lots of historical specifics I want the show to address...like where exactly in "Albion" is Camelot located? What time period are we in (is Rome still around are has the Empire fallen)? Who are these fellow kings and where do they rule? Where the hell did the Round Table come from? If we wanted to get picky about historical inaccuracies, we could have a field day with nearly everything on the show, starting first and foremost with the language (historical Arthur probably would've spoken Old English or Latin)...but then it becomes nearly impossible to craft a show that's truly historically accurate, esp. given that we don't know much about the historical Arthur anyways, even if there was one.

What do you mean by the "military technology of the show"? Is it accurate?

Also, does anyone else find it hilarious that Merlin has two costumes? Red shirt with blue scarf and blue shirt with red scarf? :smilielol5: I wonder how much thought went into that.

[sithkittie]

Welcome back! I want to be taking that class! I'd get my butt kicked though. Mind sharing your reading list? I'd be super interested in checking out what I've read and what I'm still missing. I haven't read anything on Robin Hood. I've got about what Disney and Mel Brooks shared. ;) (okay, there was another movie in there, but I forget who even was in it.)

OH! Military technology! Heck.no. is my answer to the show being remotely accurate. By that I mean castles, armor, and weapons. I'd love to learn more about all of those (and play, I wanna play!!). That's, I think, the most fascinating part of medieval studies for me. I would guess, by the structure of the castle and the plate armor as well as the regulation of the tourneys that the show is set sometime around 1500 (please someone correct me if I'm wrong). But then we have Uther and some of the knights wearing crusades style mail with those long goofy-looking robes over them and the bucket helmets. Bucket helmet (http://www.fanpop.com/spots/merlin-on-bbc/images/16707574/title/series-3-episode-11-promo-picture-photo) meets this (first picture on the left - Arthur's helmet) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/merlin/pictures/s02e02/index.shtml). I don't think so. I don't buy the king of a rich nation wearing outdated armor while his son gets all the new toys. And let's not forget Cenred. I'm trying to remember if at any point he's actually wearing armor. It's possible what he has on is supposed to be leather armor, but boy do I not buy that from a king (unless he was from, oh, the 6th century...). Morgause is in the same mishmash mail/plate combo Arthur usually wears, but I can't remember if Cenred was actually wearing armor when they attacked Camelot or not...

Anyway, point being, I think the creators of the show took a cursory glance at "castles, armor, and knights" and picked what looked the coolest. I do appreciate that they bothered to stick Arthur in more protective armor for the jousts, but yeah.. mishmash.

Well, at least the BBC made an attempt at doing research (more apparent with all of this tearing it apart). I think the show might have been improved if they'd actually stuck to some of the things they must have found.

I totally didn't notice Merlin's clothes change. I really just thought he was always in the same clothes.

[Three Sparrows]

To answer the original question, my favorite knight is Geraint. He is so flawed and sometimes I just want to whack his thick skull, but he is still great. My second favorite is Sir Bedevere. I have read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, The Idylls of the King, and Finding King Arthur. My favorite is Tennyson's The Idylls of the King. I like Sir Percival too.
On a different note, I think my favorite female character is Elaine. Stupid Lancelot.

[Wilde woman]

Hi Three Sparrows! Glad you chimed in. Geraint is an interesting knight, and probably one of my first Arthurian loves. ;) His story was one of the first I read in my first undergraduate Arthurian class, and I simply loved it. His story is based on Celtic sources, so if you're interested in him, you may want to check out the Welsh version of his story, "Geraint son of Erbin" in the Mabinogion. I first ran into him in the French romance, Erec and Enide, where Chretien renamed him Erec. The French version of the story is by far my favorite Geraint narrative. I feel like Twain also draws on aspects of the Geraint and Enide story, especially the Enide figure. Do you feel that way too?

What is it you like about Bedivere and Percival?

Bedivere has never done much for me, but Percival is growing on me. I'm not usually interested in Grail knights, but the beginnings of the Percival are always hilarious because Percival goes through the process of learning what knights are, and how they behave, and how to become one. He makes some hysterical mistakes along the way to becoming a proper knight.

Do you like Elaine because of Tennyson's poem, The Lady of Shallott? I have to ask because that's where most people know her from.

Is Finding King Arthur a different book than Discovering King Arthur? I'm reading the latter for class; it's by Geoffrey Ashe.

Also, since you mentioned your love for Tennyson, feel free to come discuss the Idylls with us. A couple of us are reading it for the first time and posting our first impressions in the Tennyson sub-forum:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58490

Sithkittie - I PM'd you my class reading list. About Robin Hood...I haven't read much about him either, other than children's versions. But I've loved all the movies about him, except the recent Russell Crowe one. Have you seen the BBC adaptation of Robin Hood? Like Merlin, you'd definitely watch it more for eye candy than historical accuracy, but I think it was aimed at a slightly more mature audience than Merlin, and is therefore a bit more believable. The best part, for me, were the villains. The show had a deliciously evil (and slightly unhinged) Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisborne is played by a dreamy, leather-clad Richard Armitage (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0035514/).


Bucket helmet meets this (first picture on the left - Arthur's helmet). I don't think so. I don't buy the king of a rich nation wearing outdated armor while his son gets all the new toys. And let's not forget Cenred. I'm trying to remember if at any point he's actually wearing armor.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: The two helmets look ridiculous side by side!

See, I don't know enough about the history of armor to really comment, but I do agree with you that the chain mail looks like its from the Crusades period, which is anachronistic. I have a question: why does Arthur's plate armor only cover one shoulder (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://0.tqn.com/d/scifi/1/0/q/k/-/-/s02e04_arthur_merlin_1600x1200.jpg&imgrefurl=http://lyricsdog.in/s/bbc%2520merlin%2520arthur&usg=__uPtkVZZ5zwchxsMEtI1TZmb5LUM=&h=1200&w=1600&sz=206&hl=en&start=53&zoom=1&tbnid=ujz7EqMTiVBqbM:&tbnh=146&tbnw=187&ei=U6g0TZOtKIOdlgfR69XACg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmerlin%2Barthur%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26 client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D621%26tbs%3Disch: 10%2C1603&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=532&vpy=187&dur=709&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=190&ty=108&oei=Sag0Tc7DDIT7lwefsO2DCg&esq=4&page=4&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:53&biw=1280&bih=621)? Is that accurate? because it looks really stupid, IMO. And ALL of the crowns on the show look unwieldy to me, especially Arthur's diamond-studded circlet thingy (http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lay60jE59k1qzqe90o1_500.jpg). Not at all flattering. Obviously BBC and I have issues over what looks the coolest.

But I have to say that I adore Morgana's dresses and cloaks. I have no idea if they're historically accurate (they look more Renaissance-y than medieval to me), but they look so luxurious. Apparently, velvet was in high fashion back then.

[sithkittie]

Hi Three Sparrows :wave:

I actually rather enjoyed Geraint. I just finished Idylls today (and will need to flail and rant before being capable of holding any intelligent discussion on it :incazzato:), and I think I liked him best in it. If he was in Malory I was probably too overwhelmed by the language and everything else to notice him. I think that needs a reread. Seriously though, communication!! I felt so bad for Enid. Geraint was so dense. I'm on Chretien's version right now, but Erec just set off after knight-dude with the dwarf. I'm hoping I'll like this version better (Tennyson and I are having issues right now though that idyll was probably my favorite). What is up with Erec? That seems like a really random, completely unrelated name change.

You know what I just realized? I don't have a favorite female character. :eek: In what I've read so far, they're either wicked harlots (oh Tennyson... how I'm glad I never will meet you), really peripheral, or just along for the ride. I'm all for a good female villain, but the "bad" ones have so far been so eyeroll inducing (Vivien) or not so much bad as demonized (Guinevere). Of the "good" ones, I did rather like Enid. She tried so very hard, and I enjoyed her spunk.

What is it about Elaine that you like?

Wilde Woman - Thanks! And I shall have more hours of viewing kyaa-ness ahead of me. :nod::arf:

Yeah, it's a fight to ignore the anachronisms (to steal your word for lack of a better) sometimes. The armor is really the most glaring. And the over abundance of swords. I believe the going rate for a sword in the middle ages was like two oxen or six male slaves or something like that. :skep: Gwen as a blacksmith's daughter doesn't explain all of that away.

I don't know. The crowns look ridiculous, but I buy them more than I would buy them wearing this sucker (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jvBFHkK2ZXc/TPbA_m4792I/AAAAAAAAJL8/xxAnje9gFQ4/s400/queen+morgana.jpg) all the time. ;) They do seem out of place in nice, shiny, private-roomed Camelot with all the fancy armor and other jewelry though. Only now I have a mental image of Arthur in a tiara with his donkey ears. :smilielol5: Oh dear, that's not going away any time soon.

I want Morgana's wardrobe, but yeah, way too tailored for middle ages. I want that green velvet thing she has! And her purple riding dress!! Though I've always wondered about having the cloaks over the horses' rumps like that. Movies always do it. :frown2: Do you think people actually rode like that back in the days of capes and cloaks? Having ridden on and behind horses... I wouldn't!

Morgause wears her armor like that too. I don't know for sure, but I would say that's BBC going "This looks cool!" again. He's got it on his sword arm usually, which makes sense. I mean, you can't hold a shield and sword at the same time, but if you're blocking hits from a sword with your arm, one, ow! and two, you don't need plate armor to do it. Flat hits like the edge of a sword aren't going to break through chain mail, only something that pierces would. Might break something underneath, which plate armor might add protection for... but it's your arm. You get hit hard enough to break a bone with armor on I'd be more worried about your shoulder or elbow (and why the heck are you blocking with your arm!?). Not having it on the shield arm... might make sense? I would think I'd want it there more (or too) though since you've got a one handed weapon, you can block with your other hand, shield or not, which arm is taking the most hits? There were points where the different armors were pieced together, leather with chain mail, and some parts of full plate armor still had chain mail sections, so I don't think it would be completely unbelievable.... but it does give me the impression of "this looks cool!" more than "this is practical!"

[Three Sparrows]

Which question should I answer first? Hmm...
I did mean Discovering King Arthur by Ashe, I just didn't have the book near me so I didn't remember the exact title. I like Sir Percival because he just isn't like the other knights; he is not like Lancelot who is so perfect in every way except Guinevere, nor is he a classic knight like Sir Gawain (though Gawain is awesome too). He is just himself, and very religious, which I like. I am not really sure what draws me to Sir Bedivere; I guess it is because he is pretty much Arthur's only true friend; his first and last knight.
I have never read the French version of Geraint, but I want to.:nod:
I like Elaine because she was so "right" for Lancelot, but he was a jerk and so she died. I suppose it is because her story is so pathetic that I like it. After all, Tennyson has some pretty nice poetry in Lancelot and Elaine.

sithkittie, I agree that Vivian isn't much of a villain-she just doesn't seem to cut it.

Methinks I will wander over to the Idyll thread...:drool5:

[sithkittie]

Ok, this is, admittedly, a little off topic (maybe not too much?), but I have to ask. Does anybody remember the movie A Knight's Tale with Heath Ledger that came out probably 10 years ago? (Side note: first teen movie I absolutely loved! I was all over the jousting, as ridiculous as it was.) I've read enough of Chaucer's Knight's Tale to know that it really doesn't have a whole lot of connection, and I always thought the writers were just having fun. I watched it again not that long ago with a friend, reminiscing about high school, and I did notice that there were a few comments by the character Geoffrey Chaucer, that did connect to his work.

That's not my point. My point does actually have to do with Arthur's knights, I promise. I was reading The Knight of the Cart on the train today, and I about died laughing at Guenevere's telling Lancelot to do his worst. I always thought that seen in A Knight's Tale was the cheesiest, most ridiculous way to "prove your devotion," and it's like copy/paste from The Knight of the Cart. I love it! (Ok, the joust was completely different, but still.)

That was really random, sorry, but I'm still giggling over the discovery that the writers of that movie actually took stuff from classical literature and I just now caught it 10 years later!!

To make this post a little less random - I've really enjoyed Chretien de Troyes!!! And yes that gets all those exclamation marks. Except Cliges. I really didn't like Cliges once it actually started being about him. It was sappy with Alexander, but the story about Cliges himself just felt like someone wanted to rewrite Tristan and Isolde without making Isolde sleep with two men. I can't really pick a favorite of the other three. It's tied somewhere between Erec and Enide and Yvain. There was a lot that I loved about both stories.

What's up with "My lord Gawain" and "My lord Yvain"?? There are footnotes about everything under the sun in my edition (mostly really obvious things like "The confusion over the identity is because the body is completely concealed in armor" in a scene following a battle :thumbs_up Ya think?), but why only those two are referred to like that, and Gawain almost every time his name comes up in the narration, is never addressed.

Wilde woman - I watched the first season of Robin Hood. :smilielol5: Oh those were good times.

?? Richard Armitage is playing Thorin in the Hobbit???? YES TO THAT!!

Three Sparrows - Yeah... Vivien didn't really succeed in doing much more than capturing Merlin. Why does Merlin always get such a lame death? I liked Mallory's better. At least you know then he deserved what he got! Vivien was just annoying.

[Wilde woman]

Wow, I totally remember A Knight's Tale, and I saw it way before I ever read Chaucer, so I was able to enjoy it for the eye candy/entertainment it was. (My favorite part to this day is naked Chaucer! :smilielol5:) So yeah, now having read the tale, the movie is completely unreflective.

I still haven't read Knight of the Cart (but it's going on the list for my grad session this semester!), but now I have something to look forward to! A connection with a Heath Ledger movie! Yay!

Sithkittie - Glad you enjoyed Chretien! Did you really just read all five romances in two weeks? I'm so jealous you have the time to do that! I've read 3/5, but I'm determined to do the last two in my Arthur class this semester. Out of curiosity, whose translations are you reading? In my undergrad, we used Burton Raffel's translations, but now my grad school profs are recommending another translator.


I really didn't like Cliges once it actually started being about him. It was sappy with Alexander, but the story about Cliges himself just felt like someone wanted to rewrite Tristan and Isolde without making Isolde sleep with two men.

Maybe you already know this, but a lot of scholars think that Cliges was definitely written with the Tristan story in mind. I personally haven't read it, but I've heard that it's a parody of Tristan (since Chretien seemed to hate adultery so much). Also, there seems to be some evidence that Chretien did write a rendition of the Tristan story (you'll be happy to know), but it has been lost! Noooooooo!

And, yes, one of Cliges' sources was definitely an Alexander romance.


I can't really pick a favorite of the other three. It's tied somewhere between Erec and Enide and Yvain. There was a lot that I loved about both stories.

I know! I'm stuck between the same two! But in many ways, the two romances should be read together, since they're kind of complementary. In E&E, the knight neglects his chivalric duties in favor of love, while the opposite happens in Yvain. Personally, I really really like Yvain better as a story because there's a definite pattern of growth that happens, and it's easy to see the motivations for all his actions. Also, Lunette is friggin' amazing! I like E&E for different reasons; it does make a good story, but I'm really fascinated by the Celtic and folklore elements in it (the obsession with the horses, the dresses, silence). It feels much more Otherworldly to me than the other Chretien romances, with the exception of the FANTASTIC sequence with the well in Yvain. The opening third of Yvain has to be one of my favorite Arthurian set pieces EVER.

BTW, there are Welsh versions of both E&E and Yvain. E&E in the Welsh redaction is called Geraint, son of Erbin and the Welsh Yvain is Owain, or the Lady of the Fountain (and is in the Mabinogion). Neither tale is as good as Chretien's IMO. But there is another fascinating tale in the Mabinogion featuring Owain called the Dream of Rhonabwy, in which Owain is actually Arthur's peer and ENEMY. It a fascinating read because it takes place all in a dreamscape.


What is up with Erec? That seems like a really random, completely unrelated name change.

So Erec = French, Geraint = Welsh, ORIGINALLY. Then, other authors start getting involved and steal the names for their own adaptations. Anyways, the details are fuzzy in my head, but I'm pretty sure the Welsh name Geraint originates with the name of the town/tribe where he comes from. I don't remember how it turns into Erec or vice versa. That's one of the unresolved mysteries of Erec/Geraint: because we can't determine the exact date of the Welsh story, we don't know whether the French or Welsh manuscript came first...so we don't know which one is the source text. It's frustrating because whenever you talk about this knight, it's always Erec/Geraint...you can't just pick one.

How did you feel about Perceval? Out of the three I read, it is my least favorite, partially because it's unfinished. But it starts out so well...it's hilarious to see the naive Perceval learn to fit into the knightly world. Isn't it sad that Chretien died before he could finish it? Everyone's dying to know how he would've solved the Grail quest, and what the hell he was doing with the Gawain storyline.

Re: Gawain. Yeah, Chretien always does this compare/contrast stuff with Gawain. It happens with both Yvain and Perceval (and I'm guessing it'll happen in Lancelot)? My best guess is that Gawain is the epitome of English knights in the Arthurian tradition, so it makes sense to compare him (somewhat unfavorably) to these knights in the French tradition.

Re: BBC's Robin Hood. Is it not hilarious? I L-O-V-E the Sherriff. And Richard Armitage. Hubba hubba! He makes me :willy_nilly: in the best way possible. Just curious...do you consider Robin Hood or Merlin the better show? I vote RH.


I did mean Discovering King Arthur by Ashe, I just didn't have the book near me so I didn't remember the exact title.

Yeah, I'm about halfway through it now, and really starting to get into the history of Arthur. Ashe does a great job both summarizing and pointing out the important points/flaws of all the source texts (starting with Geoffrey, but even going earlier than him into the really fragmentary stuff like Gildas and Nennius). He compares what these "chronicles" say to what actually happened in history and works backwards to see where the two converge and to see who were the most likely candidates to have been the historical Arthur. I can see why the legend has survived so long and why people are so fascinated with it: it's tied up in all these issues of nationhood and language and cultural identity. And the nature of the evidence is SOOOOOOOO tantalizing/frustrating. There's just enough documentation to suggest Arthur DID exist, but not enough to pinpoint just who he was or where he lived and what battles he fought. The most intriguing thing to me is that the land itself is absolutely IMPRINTED with his legend...the names of different sites, the landmarks, the evidence for different battles. But it's not enough to really prove anything conclusive.

The other thing about this book is that it's eminently readable. You don't have to struggle to understand what Ashe is saying. In other words, he doesn't write like a self-important critic or theorist. Thank God!

BTW, sithkittie, if you're looking for more modern Arthurian stuff to read (cuz medieval romances can get pretty repetitious after a while), you MUST find time to read the Once and Future King. It's such a funny and moving rendition of Malory, but you'll laugh and cry even harder if you're familiar with the source texts (which you mostly are).

Finally, I haven't had the chance to read anymore Tennyson since last time. GAH! I have so much class reading to do. But I'm trying to get around to it soon. (If only Tennyson weren't so well-documented I might be able to read him for my work on the Camelot Project, but everyone's already written about him, so I'm in the process of hunting down more obscure Arthurian texts. Argh!) However, the upside is that I'm learning a lot. Currently, I'm looking into the Italian Arthurian tradition to try to rustle up some Arthurian texts for my language exam. Apparently, the Italians are obsessed with Tristan...and they're all written in really hard dialects. Boo!

[sithkittie]

Currently, I'm looking into the Italian Arthurian tradition to try to rustle up some Arthurian texts for my language exam. Apparently, the Italians are obsessed with Tristan...and they're all written in really hard dialects. Boo!

Yes to that!!! I want to read!!! er... I don't speak Italian. :P

Ok, going back to the top of your post. Yes! I love naked Chaucer!! I died laughing every time he showed up.

I've only read four of the romances. My copy doesn't include Percival, the editor said because it wasn't finished it was unfair to Chretien. :rolleyes: And yes I did just read those in 2 weeks... and a few other books and comic books. I have an hour and a half on the train going one way to work. I get lots of reading time. I'm reading a copy I ganked off of Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/831). I can't actually find who the translator was, but there's about a page long bibliography that includes some "translated by" entries.

Chretien hated adultery? Let me know what you think about the bit with Lancelot and Guenevere then when you get to it.

Haha, the editor of my copy felt the need to footnote and compare Erec and Endie to Yvain regarding the knightly behaviors. :rolleyes: They are really good together though. And Yes! Lunette was awesome. I have a fondness for screw-ups, and Yvain totally screwed up (and ended up naked and crazy in the woods - two things that endeared me to Tristan, go figure). I liked the lion too, though I was trying to figure out if there ever were lions in Europe... I know the symbol is used quite frequently.

I think I must have read the story of Owain in the Mabinogion because the part with the fountain was really familiar.

I was just going to ask you what you thought about the difference between Tennyson's version of [I]Erec and Enide[I] and Chretien's, but I think you're still a couple away from that. That's an open question for anybody though (and wilde woman, let me know when you get there!).

I need to find a copy of Percival. Gutenberg doesn't have one, and I'm lacking in English bookstores or libraries still. I can't find a non-pirated ebook version of Once and Future King, so I think that one is going to have to wait until I'm back in an English speaking country as well. :(

Question! I saw a picture of Yvain and the lion fighting a dragon. Is that supposed to be the serpent that was attacking the lion, or is there a story in which they actually fight a dragon?

Re: Gawain - I didn't notice it as much in Lancelot. He's there, but he's referred to without the "my lord" attached to his name (for the most part, I think). It is also possible that I was engaged enough with the story to not notice it the times he was mentioned, but I'm thinking it just wasn't there.

Re: Robin Hood - I love the Sheriff!! He's nuts! I don't know though, I mean, Robin Hood is wearing a hoodie, one of the characters was wearing camo pants and combat boots with a metal studded belt. I've only watched season one of Robin Hood. I wasn't planning on watching more, but maybe I'll give season two a try. I have most of next week off work anyway. I don't know, I liked Merlin better for the story. They're both absurd, which is fun, but Robin Hood feels like it's taking itself more seriously than it should. And he's so preachy, I just want to smack him!

I'm really trying to picture Richard Armitage as a dwarf, and it's taking all the sexy away. :confused5: mm, but yes, I did enjoy him as Guy, despite the character's overall stupidity. Nice eye candy.

Good luck with your hunt! If you find any of those Italian stories translated, let me know!! :drool5:

[sithkittie]

And I'm double posting to flail about how the text for Perceval isn't available online. The only copy I've been able to find is a giant book that's $55! o.O All of the other four are everywhere, but no Perceval. Even Penguin looks like they've only published the romances as a set of four. :cryin: I require a large library or a nice big bookstore to hunt through. Grr!

[Wilde woman]

Yeah, I imagine it'd be hard to get copies of these romances if you're living in Japan. Come back!


And I'm double posting to flail about how the text for Perceval isn't available online. The only copy I've been able to find is a giant book that's $55! o.O All of the other four are everywhere, but no Perceval. Even Penguin looks like they've only published the romances as a set of four.

Here (http://www.amazon.com/Perceval-Story-Chretien-Troyes-Romances/dp/0300075863/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296326223&sr=1-1) is the Perceval I own, which you can get on amazon for a reasonable price. A quick search on amazon also turned up translations by Ruth Cline and Nigel Bryant for good prices. Also, if you're looking for a copy of the complete Arthurian romances from Chretien, I have the Penguin version (http://www.amazon.com/Arthurian-Romances-Penguin-Classics-Chr%C3%A9tien/dp/0140445218/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296326419&sr=1-1), which DOES include Perceval.

Both Raffel and Cline do verse translations of the original Old French, which I prefer, while the Penguin translators do prose translations. From reading the reviews of the Bryant book, it seems like Bryant uses Raffel's translation, but (and this is what sets his book apart) he includes all three continuations of the Perceval legend in English translation! BUT he doesn't include the complete texts of all three, only "selections". Anyways, the continuations are what various writers thought up to complete the romance, since Chretien died before he could finish writing Perceval. It makes sense that Bryant wouldn't include all three of them in complete form, because they're loooooong. But it might be worth coughing up the extra money to get both the Chretien and the continuations.


Yes to that!!! I want to read!!! er... I don't speak Italian. :P

Well, all the Italian Tristans are based off of the Old French Prose Tristan, which has definitely been translated into English. In fact, I found an abridged version of the Prose Tristan on the Camelot Project (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/porneytristan.htm) that you could start with, if you like. I warn you, it's quite long. It is, however, a translation from 1780 so it may sound old-fashioned. There are copyright laws that prevent us from putting up anything before a certain time period.

And while we're at it, here's OaFK on amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Once-Future-Terence-Hanbury-White/dp/0441003834/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296328003&sr=1-1).

Okay, I'll stop selling books to you now and get on with your comments. :D


I have a fondness for screw-ups, and Yvain totally screwed up (and ended up naked and crazy in the woods - two things that endeared me to Tristan, go figure).

If you love screw-ups, wait until you get to Perceval. His is quite possibly the most effed up screw-up in all Arthurian lit, well...after Arthur-Morgause and Lancelot-Guinevere. I too love the knights that screw up and end up naked and crazy in the woods. It's one of my favorite tropes. ;) And Arthurian knights seem particularly prone to it.


Question! I saw a picture of Yvain and the lion fighting a dragon. Is that supposed to be the serpent that was attacking the lion, or is there a story in which they actually fight a dragon?

The first option. Depending on your translation the serpent is either a "snake" or a "dragon", though the original OF is "serpent". I suppose a "dragon" would dramatize it more, but either one would work in the Christian allegory.

Also, on lions in Europe. Didn't the Romans import lions to use in their gladiator fights? But other than that, I don't suppose the average European would've ever seen a lion.


They're both absurd, which is fun, but Robin Hood feels like it's taking itself more seriously than it should. And he's so preachy, I just want to smack him!

Yeah, I can see that. But I guess I like Robin Hood better because it takes itself more seriously, and isn't targeted at kids/teens the way that Merlin obviously is. And because the Sheriff is so completely off his rocker, I get a sense of menace from him that is lacking in the villains-of-the-week in Merlin.

Re: Richard Armitage as Thorin. I found a picture (http://www-images.theonering.org/torwp/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Dwarf2-tornlogo.jpg)! If it weren't for the crazy hair and beard, he'd look okay. But I suppose crazy hair and beards is what defines our dwarves today. Boo.

I also left some new thoughts in the Tennyson forum. Check it out if you've got time.

[kasie]

Wilde woman - I'd be interested to know what Ashe's take on Arthur is in the book you are reading, if you have the time to jot down a few notes, please. I have his Mythology of the British Isles which has several chapters on the Arthurian legends in which he seems to be opting for a Local warlord in the immediate post Roman period which I find quite acceptable as an origin of the myth.

[sithkittie]

Why would Penguin include all 5 in their print book but not in the digital edition?!?! That's so not fair!

And thank you for the link to the Prose Tristan. I shall enjoy that one! ;)

Re: lions - I believe they did. I wonder if the lion would have been inspired by that or just stories of lions that filtered into Europe. Were there big cats at least in England at one point? I remember hearing something about big panther-like cats, but it had the ring of an urban legend to it. There was a prehistoric cave lion (http://worldmuseumofman.org/cavelion.php), but that's not really answering my question.

*edit* Found it! (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1103_051103_tower_lions.html) Well, I guess that answers some of that!

Re: Robin Hood - So I started watching season 2, and it's a lot better than season 1. Season 1 was trying to be too preachy and make too many points that it kinda killed the story. It's come out a bit more. And yes, the sheriff definitely has more of a menacing feel than the Merlin villains.

Um... the picture... :svengo::rofl: Just wow. Oh dear, I really can't comment other than yup, that's about what I imagined. Is that a real picture though? It looks photoshopped. Either way... yeah... Well it should be fun to watch! I loved the Hobbit as a kid.

Off to the Tennyson forum.

[Wilde woman]

I'd be interested to know what Ashe's take on Arthur is in the book you are reading, if you have the time to jot down a few notes, please. I have his Mythology of the British Isles which has several chapters on the Arthurian legends in which he seems to be opting for a Local warlord in the immediate post Roman period which I find quite acceptable as an origin of the myth.

Just so you know, kasie, Mythology of the British Isles (2000) is a much more recent book than Discovery of King Arthur (1985), so if what you've read is any different from my summary, yours is more current. Anyways, here's a condensed summation of his argument:

Ashe takes Geoffrey of Monmouth's Latin chronicle, History of the Kings of Britain (c. 1136) which gives the first known 'biographical' account of Arthur and tries to weed out what is history vs. what is fantasy. He takes the names and dates mentioned in Geoffrey and compares them to what we actually know about the history of those times. He finds that many of the names in Geoffrey are historical names, although few of the historical figures actually do the things Geoffrey claims in his account. He attaches these names to the dates of their historical counterparts and, from there, tries to reconstruct Arthur's story based on these dates and any other evidence he can find (other documents, archeological evidence, philological changes, and good old-fashioned hypothesizing). One of Geoffrey's claims, which Ashe takes at face value, is that Geoffrey 'translated' his chronicle from a "very old book", which has since been lost. Ashe assumes that this book existed, was a reliable chronicle, and tries to reconstruct what might've been in this "very old book" on which Geoffrey bases his chronicle.

(This is one of the problems I have with Ashe's methodology. Since medieval writers didn't have the same sense of originality = good writing as we do today, it was pretty typical for them to claim that the texts they wrote were copies or translations from another authoritative text. Which is conveniently lost. :D But many times, they were lying and simply making up their texts. Personally, I think this was the case with Geoffrey; I don't believe there was a "very old book".)

Ashe then walks us through the traditional steps to try to ID Arthur by assessing the authenticity of what he calls the "Old Welsh Trail" (Gildas, Bede, Nennius, the Annales Cambriae, the Triads, other fragments of Welsh poetry). But there are major problems such as the very very fragmentary nature of the texts, lack of consistency between them, and - in at least one case - an author whose political bias is so strong, he may well have rewritten history to suit his viewpoint. Having hit a dead end with the traditional trail, Ashe then starts thinking independently.

He notices an inconsistency within the Geoffrey text itself. At one point, Merlin prophecies that Arthur will die while fighting overseas. But that prophecy does not come true; instead, Arthur loses a key battle in Gaul because of Mordred's betrayal and comes home to Britain, fights Mordred, and dies in the process. In other words, he dies on the island, not abroad. So Ashe takes that tidbit and runs with it. Instead of continuing to look for evidence on the island, he starts looking for evidence of Arthur abroad, in Gaul/Brittany.

Ashe comes up with a probable set of dates for Gallic campaigns (in the 5th century) and then uses specific names and references in Geoffrey to narrow down those dates, until he's down a very narrow window of time (2 years!). And based on those two years, he looks for an Arthur-prototype, a British warlord who was leading military campaigns in Gaul. Guess what? It turns out there is such a person. He was a British-born noble (possibly a king) who earned his military stripes fighting off the Saxons. This king, who is probably Christian, is contacted by the Holy Roman Emperor, to come help defend the crumbling Empire which is being sacked by invading Visigoths. Surprisingly, the British king accepts! Here, Ashe paints him as the longed-for Restitutor Orbis (or World-Restorer) who will defeat the invading barbarians, reunite the fractured Roman Empire, and restore its former glory. You see the connection, right? In Geoffrey, Arthur, too, is idealized as the man who will drive out the barbarian Saxons and unite Britain under one king. So, this man crossed the Channel and was on his way to Rome (just as Arthur was about to conquer Rome in Geoffrey) when he is betrayed (not by Mordred, but by a historical Roman turncoat). And this betrayal is what causes him to lose his final battle (just as Arthur loses in the Battle of Camlan)....which has devastating effects. Basically, the Roman Empire collapses, and Britain - in his absence - is overrun by marauding Saxons. The British warlord is NOT killed in the battle, but is last seen riding through Gaul to a place called (get this) Avallon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avallon) which is a REAL city in Burgundy. :yikes:

And the name of this man? Riothamus. He, Ashe argues, is the historical Arthur. But of course, the name doesn't fit, and Ashe gives two explanations for this (both of which are unconvincing). 1) Ashe insists that - like many noble Britons with Roman sympathies - Riothamus actually has two names, one Roman and one British. Riothamus, he says, is the British name, while his Roman name just happens to reorganize the letters a bit, to become Artorius. This, of course, eventually becomes Anglicized to Arthur. And 2) using his knowledge of Welsh, Ashe argues that Riothamus is a compound Welsh word, meaning "highest king". In other words, he argues that Riothamus is not the king's actual name, but only an honorific (as "Caesar" or "Your Majesty" is), and that the king's Christian name is Artorius. This is, quite frankly, one of the most ludicrous parts of the argument because there is absolutely ZERO documentation for "Riothamus-Artorius."

Ashe spends the rest of the book resolving the last few problems and piling on more evidence. He jumps through a bunch of hoops to try to make the final dates make sense, and IMO doesn't do it well. He adds in evidence from British hagiography, landmarks, mythology, and archeology. In one of his best chapters, he talks about how and why various British (read: Anglo-Norman) monarchs sponsored, expanded, or appropriated the Arthurian legend to further their own political ends. And he ends the book with a moving, if utterly un-scholarly, account of what we moderns find so appealing about Arthur, a man who lived 1500 years ago.

My immediate impression, upon finishing the book, was that Ashe is 1) extremely passionate and knowledgeable about this subject, 2) very clever in manipulating his evidence, and 3) not a scholarly writer. Throughout, I was struck by the lucidity of his prose (which frankly made the book a joy to read), but also meant that it wasn't really intended for scholarly audiences. It reads more like pop history or, as my professor disdainfully calls it, "alternative history". That's not to dismiss it entirely. I think Ashe has a good eye...he can see when authors are biased or for what purpose (political? religious?) a text is written. And he's very good at bringing many different types of evidence to bear. But he also makes some pretty absurd leaps in logic because, I think, he wants SO MUCH to make it work, to believe in a historical Arthur who was not just another warlord, but an earth-mover, someone who could've changed the course of history (i.e. restored the crumbling Roman Empire), if he hadn't been heinously betrayed.

From discussion in class today, my professor made it clear that Ashe's theory has NOT been widely accepted in the scholarly world. My professor also implied that Ashe, a Welshman himself, was showing a nationalistic bias in "discovering" that the historical Arthur was Welsh. I have mixed feelings about the book. On the one hand, Ashe is such a passionate, lucid, and visionary writer that you want to believe what he's saying because his argument is so cunningly put together. And, frankly, the book is a fun read. On the other hand, I couldn't ignore his very far-fetched ideas and the fact that his argument is founded on so many "ifs" (If Geoffrey got the date wrong, if Arthur campaigned on the Continent, if he really had two names...). So even though I find the book useful in a number of ways, I don't necessarily believe in Ashe's conclusions.

But I think this book is definitely worth the read if you're at all serious about Arthurian studies. (Unfortunately, the book is going out of print!) FYI, Ashe also mentions he is head of the Camelot Research Committee, which helped excavate Cadbury Castle in Somerset and which, Ashe thinks, is the most probable site for Riothamus-Arthur's Camelot. So if you're interested in possible Arthurian archeology/architecture, there's definitely a sizable portion of that in this book.

One final thing: I found a number of random but fascinating facts (including, sithkittie, a response to your question on big cats). Ashe also had a few things to say about the role of magic in the stories. And there was a really useful section about the mythological argument, the theory that Arthur was never a real historical person, but a god in some culture's pantheon that got absorbed into others' beliefs, until his story was written down. So I'll save that discussion for next time. :)

[kasie]

Many thanks for that lucid overview, WW - when I said 'brief', I really did mean 'brief' but thanks for that. Yes, Ashe's 'Mytholgy...' has toned down that argument and goes in more for ifs and maybes.

However, I re-read Phillips and Keatman's King Arthur - The True Story. I think your prof would disapprove of this also, not a particularly scholarly work though it looks like it at first glance, :D no cross-references, for example. They rely heavily on Ashe as a source (it seems to me) but they come up with some interesting theories: their candidate for Arthur is one Owain Ddantgwyn (Owain White-tooth) - ever come across him? Arthur, they suggest, is an honorific made up of Arth, meaning a Bear in Brythonic and Ursus also meaning a Bear in Latin - Arthur, they propose, is a figure who united the local Brythonic speakers with the last upholders of the declining Roman Empire. They also suggest that Camelot could be the Roman town of Viroconium, modern-day Wroxeter in Shropshire on the England-Wales border because of some fortification the town in the fifth century, post-Roman but pre-Saxon. I looked up Viroconium but my only book on Roman towns in Britain was published back in the late 60s and I know further excavation has been undertaken there so probably more is known about it now.

re: the Lion - could this be a man with an heraldic device of a Lion? I don't think there were lions in UK, at least, and probably not in Europe in the last few thousand years. Or could the story be an interpolation of a returning Crusaders' tale?

re: Guinevere/Gwenhwyfar 'White Spirit' - I expect you know there are many local legends in Wales about 'white ladies' that haunt lonely hillsides? I always suspect that these refer back to pre-Christian times and worship of the moon, the White Lady who comes and goes.

[sithkittie]

My list of books to find when I get back to the states is getting so long!

About the lion, if this is picking up the question about big cats, Yvain was traveling with a literal lion that helped him in battles, but even before I'd wanted to know where the lion even as a heraldic device came from, since wild lions weren't exactly the norm (or existent, rather) in Europe. I thought it was really interesting, the article about the zoo in the Tower of London, even though the oldest one dated back a century after Chretien's story. They must have been popular among the nobility in Europe though for someone to send them to England and keep them in a zoo. o.O It seems like a strange gift, and not exactly easy to transport.

I guess it would make sense, but it seems kinda boring for it all to boil down to the Romans. Everything boils down to what the Romans did, it seems. (Slight exaggeration, but still.)

[Wilde woman]

their candidate for Arthur is one Owain Ddantgwyn (Owain White-tooth) - ever come across him? Arthur, they suggest, is an honorific made up of Arth, meaning a Bear in Brythonic and Ursus also meaning a Bear in Latin - Arthur, they propose, is a figure who united the local Brythonic speakers with the last upholders of the declining Roman Empire.

I have not heard of this particular Owain, though the name suggests he's of Welsh origin. Is he supposed to be a Welshman-turned-Roman-supporter? Or a leader of British resistance? And while Arthur's name does mean "bear", it's hard for me to take Phillips and Keatman's etymology seriously. If the Britons were as opposed to the Romans as history would have us believe, I doubt that they'd allow any Latin influence into their language, especially in their honorifics. I would think that would be a point of pride for them.

Besides, there are very few texts that actually make an explicit connection between Arthur and a bear. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one, and it's a modern retelling. If people did take the etymology of Arthur's name seriously, you'd think there would be some stories that reflect the popular Bear's Son (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear%27s_Son_Tale) folktale type, a la Beowulf. But there aren't. Instead, most of the accounts focus much more the on the dragon of the Pendragons.


They also suggest that Camelot could be the Roman town of Viroconium, modern-day Wroxeter in Shropshire on the England-Wales border because of some fortification the town in the fifth century, post-Roman but pre-Saxon.

I vaguely remember hearing the name of this town before. The only thing I remember about it is that it had a massive re-fortification in the 6th century, which is too late to be in the historical Arthur's lifetime. But again, I don't know enough about Viroconium to comment. Out of curiosity, is it far enough north to be within the safety net of Hadrian's Wall?


re: Guinevere/Gwenhwyfar 'White Spirit' - I expect you know there are many local legends in Wales about 'white ladies' that haunt lonely hillsides? I always suspect that these refer back to pre-Christian times and worship of the moon, the White Lady who comes and goes.

Interesting. I hadn't heard about the White Lady in relation to the moon; thanks for that! I would also add that the Celts believed in white goddess who rode a white horse and could cross between the mortal and immortal world. It wouldn't surprise me if either of these were the basis for the mythical Guinevere.

Re: lions. I don't think there would have to be lions in the UK for legends to spread about them. Again, I believe early Britain's association with Rome brought stories of lions to the island. What Rome knew, Britain did too. And Rome had direct contact with Africa much earlier than the 5th century of the historical Arthur...remember, Hannibal's Punic Wars against Carthage took place in 1st century BC.

Besides, the Britons had intimate knowledge of the Aeneid, since they pretty stole their genealogy wholesale from it, and Virgil does make mention of lions in it. As for kasie's Crusades theory, the dates would be consistent with Chretien's Yvain, so it's possible.


Um... the picture... Just wow. Oh dear, I really can't comment other than yup, that's about what I imagined. Is that a real picture though? It looks photoshopped. Either way... yeah... Well it should be fun to watch! I loved the Hobbit as a kid.

I'm really bad at catching photoshop...it could very well be. But it was posted on onering.net, if that counts for anything. Still, I'll be glad to see Armitage in an American production, even if he's all covered in hair. :eek2:

[kasie]

The gist of Phillips and Keatman's theory is that there was a tribe of Picts (ie modern Scots) that were invited to help defend the kingdom of Powys (roughly central east Wales and the bordering eastern stretch of the present day English Midlands). These incomers had been displaced by the warring Scots (present day Irish) Picts and Saxons in the area roughly north of Hadrain's Wall and south of present day Edinburgh. Owain was their dux bellorum. They suggest this explains a decription of Arthur as being a leader who was 'with' the British but not 'of' them. They suggest that not all the Britons were necessarily anti-Roman, there had been extensive intermarriage and association with Roman settlements had given a security and standard of living that the Romano-British families were dismayed to see threatened by the withdrawl of the Legions. A pro-Roman tribe, skilled in fighting the new invaders, with Roman standards and discipline, were welcomed by the Romanised kings of Powys as a much-needed defence force against the beleagured last outpost of Roman civilisation in Briton.

They suggest that just as the Pendragon was the 'Head Dragon' of the fighting force so Arth-Ursus was the fighting 'Bear' who united the Romanised Brythonics to fight off the destroyers of their beloved and threatened way of life.

Wroxeter/Viroconium is a tiny place - I had to get the road map out to pinpoint it exactly! - it's roughly west of Birmingham, south-east of Shrewsbury, a long, long way from Hadrian's Wall. It's not far from the Wrekin and Much Wenlock, Houseman's Wenlock Edge, a natural defence as a raised escarpment. There are many earthworks in the vicinity, among them Caer Caradoc, a name to conjure with! It commands a river confluence, the Teme and the Severn, both of which would have been navigable to shallow draught boats. Interestingly, it's not far from Ironbridge, the Cradle of the Industrial Revolution in Britain so I wonder if the Romans had already discovered the sources of iron, etc, in the area - there is apparently evidence of metal-working in the ruins.

[Wilde woman]

Kasie, this book sounds fascinating. I have a few more general questions about it. Is this Owain White-tooth supposed to be of noble stock, a king at all, or just a dux bellorum?


They suggest this explains a decription of Arthur as being a leader who was 'with' the British but not 'of' them.

Are Philips and Keatman suggesting that this Owain was Roman? Because his name sounds Welsh, which would mean he's both "with" the British and "of" them. Do P&K explain how their Arthur came to be associated with the twelve battles? Or explain how his myth spread to the continent once it was established?

Wow, I was way off about the location of Viroconium! Nowhere near Hadrian's Wall. It's interesting that the name Caradoc comes up, since his name shows up in the Welsh Triads, the Mabinogion, and in Geoffrey of Monmouth, as one of Arthur's followers.

Also, I looked up some reviews of this book on amazon and they mention that P&K give quite a unique psychoanalytic interpretation of the Dream of Rhonabwy, which makes sense since you mentioned Powys. If you've got the time and inclination, could you summarize their argument for me (here or in a PM)? It's fascinating that they would argue Arthur is a man named Owain when in the Dream, Owain is actually Arthur's foe!

Sithkittie, here's the reference to big cats in Ashe that stuck in my head. In one of the earliest Arthurian sources, an anonymous Welsh poem called "Pa Gwr" (What man?), Arthur has a dialogue with a gatekeeper in an attempt to be let into a fortress. In his dialogue, he mentions Kay (Cai), who is apparently best known for killing a gigantic "speckled" feline called "Palug's Cat", who has famously killed and eaten 180 men! Ashe speculates that:


If not a creature of pure fancy, it may have been a leopard which escaped from a ship bringing exotic cargo for a king of Gwynedd [north Wales]. Folk memory would soon have enlarged it.

So yeah, even really early on (before the 12th century), we have evidence of exotic animals being transported between the Continent and the island.

I'm reading Chretien's Lancelot this week! I'm so excited, but first I have to finish this long critical book on Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde. :sad: That's my assignment for tonight, but I'm hoping to start Chretien tomorrow, assuming I still have brain cells left.

Anyways, for the Arthur class this week, we (re)read the Arthurian portions of Geoffrey of Monmouth, which I remember HATING as an undergrad. But this time, coming back, I liked it a lot more, since I'm much more able to separate what's fact from fiction. And it's fun to see how Geoffrey weaves the two together, rather imaginatively (or infuriatingly). BUT the one section which EVERYBODY unequivocally hates is the Prophecies of Merlin, which are at once mind-bogglingly uninterpretable and deeply politically allegorical. They turn all the political figures of the day into animals who do really strange things. My professor and I were bonding over how we took diligent marginal notes for all the other sections, and yet both our Merlin sections are BLANK. Haha! At the same time, though, if you're just reading Geoffrey for fun, some of his prophecies are bizarre enough to be hilarious. I'm including some of my favorites below:


A Hedgehog loaded with apples shall re-build the town and, attracted by the smell of these apples, birds will flock there from many different forests. The Hedgehog shall add a huge palace and then wall it round with six hundred towers...The Hedgehog will hide its apples inside Winchester and will construct hidden passages under the earth.


On its highest peak the Heron will plant an oak and on the branches of the oak it shall build its nest. Three eggs shall be laid in the nest and from them will emerge a Fox, a Wolf, and a Bear. The Fox will devour its mother and then put on an ***'s head. Once it has assumed this monstrous guise, it will terrify its brothers and drive them away to Normandy. In that country they will in their turn stir up the tusky Boar. Back they will come in a boat and in that way they will meet the Fox once more. As it begins the contest, the Fox will pretend that it is dead and will move the Boar to pity. Soon the Boar will go up to the Fox's corpse, and standing over it, will breathe into its eyes and face. The Fox, not unmindful of its ancient cunning, will bite the Boar's left hoof and sever it completely from the Boar's body. Then the Fox will leap at the Boar and tear off its right ear and its tail, and slink off to hide in the mountain caves...

How do you even begin to interpret stuff like this? And it goes on for 15 pages! Here's my personal favorite, because it involves a naked giant. :lol:


Then indeed shall come a very Giant of Wickedness, who will terrify everyone with the piercing glance of his eyes. Against him will arise the Dragon of Worcester, which will do its best to destroy him; but when they come to grips the Dragon will be worsted and overwhelmed by its conqueror's wickedness. The Giant will climb on the Dragon, throw off his clothes and then ride upon it naked. The Dragon will rear the Giant up into the air and lash his naked body with its erected tail; but the Giant will recover his strength and cut the Dragon's throat with his sword. Finally the Dragon will become entangled in its own tail and will die of poison.

[kasie]

Sorry to have been a while coming back to you on this, WW - here is the gist of the argument:

Owain, it is suggested is the son of a Votadini cheiftan, maybe their king; the Votadini were a pro-Roamn tribe living originally in the borderlands between Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall, serving as a policing force for the Romans after they withdrew troops behind Hadrian's Wall. As the area was besieged by the Picts, the Angles and the Scotii, all anti-Roman tribes, after the recall of the Legions, the Votadini, who were living in Britain but were not themselves British (rather Picts, according to the British point of view), were invited by the King of Gwynedd to move to North West Wales to help defend the kingdom. The King at the time was Ambrosius, P & K suggest, whose honorific was Uther Pendragon, 'terrible head dragon'. Owain, as his son, would have been of royal descent. They suggest that the pro-Roman tribes, of which the Votadini and the rulers of Gwynedd were numbered, would have favoured Latinised names while other British tribes would have used Brythonic, hence the combination of the two in Arth-Ursus' name. That's a very, very brief outline of their argument.

As for their interpretation of the Dream, I can find only a couple of references, one saying it is included in the Llyfr Coch Hengist and mentions the battle of Badon, but as the Red Book dates from 1400 and the king mentioned in it can be identified as one Madog who reigned around the 1150s, they consider this vision of Arthur's court to be mediaeval in origin. They also mention that The Dream forms part of the Mabinogion which is a later collection of early Welsh tales and is not an original source. I can't find any interpretations of the tale in this book.

As for the Prophesies of Merlin, in what language were they originally written? I ask because the name of Worcester drew my eye (being a native of that city!) Now, the 'cester' bit of the name comes from the same source as the 'xeter' bit of Wroxeter, 'castra', Latin for 'camp' or 'fortified place' (imagine them being voiced as 'custa' or 'susta'). Does it seem too far a stretch of imagination that 'Wor-sustra' might be a mis-spelling for Wro-sustra or vice versa? So - could 'the Dragon of Worcester' actually be the 'Dragon of Wroxeter' - Arth-Ursus himself? The references to Normandy might refer to the bit of the story that suggest Uther and his brother fled to France at one stage. I'm sure someone could unravel the contortions of the extended Arthurian story and fit it to these mysterious sayings - a nice thesis for someone! You have seen pictures of the Long Man of Wilmington and the Cerne Giant - ancient chalk figures - I expect? All sorts of amazing things are said to happen if you sleep on the Cerne Giant at Midsummer.....

[Wilde woman]

Kasie, the argument is fascinating. What do you think of it? I've always wondered why scholars think the historical Arthur was pro-Roman. I mean it makes sense that he might be of Roman ancestry, but the romances clearly state that he wants a clean break from the Roman Empire. I can stomach that Arthur might've been a Votadini chieftain because the geography and dates seem to check out, but I find the linguistic "evidence" more sketchy.


The King at the time was Ambrosius, P & K suggest, whose honorific was Uther Pendragon, 'terrible head dragon'. Owain, as his son, would have been of royal descent. They suggest that the pro-Roman tribes, of which the Votadini and the rulers of Gwynedd were numbered, would have favoured Latinised names while other British tribes would have used Brythonic, hence the combination of the two in Arth-Ursus' name.

First of all, where did P&K get their etymology for Uther? As far as I know, that name originated with Uther Pendragon. Is it supposed to be Latin? Secondly, though English was definitely influenced by Latin, I've never heard of a word combining in the way P&K describe Arthur...where the superstratum language repeats the semantic meaning of the substratum. Essentially, "Arth-Ursus" would translate as "bear-bear", which just seems unlikely to me. See, I feel like this is where all the historical Arthur theories fall apart. His name is always the problem because none of the historical Arthurs we know about have the traits of the king we're talking about, so scholars have to bend over backwards to try to explain the name. Ashe tries to claim Arthur had two names, and here P&K claim that his name is a combination of two languages. Both claim that it's an honorific rather than a real Christian name...it's one of the most difficult aspects to explain.

Also, I've always wondered about the Uther/Arthur linguistic similarity. The records show that Aurelius Ambrosius existed, but there's nothing on a historical Uther, besides Geoffrey of Monmouth's claim that they were brothers. So here's my beef with P&K. If there is no known historical Uther or Arthur, why would we need two different honorifics? Why not just either Uther or Arthur? Or is one a corruption of the other? (This is why I asked about the etymology of "Uther" because P&K translate it as "terrible" while they translate "Arthur" more conventionally as "bear".)

As for the dream, perhaps I'm thinking of the other book you mentioned? I know I read on amazon that one of them does a psychoanalytic reading of it.

Yes, Geoffrey's prophecies of Merlin are indeed written in Latin! So it wouldn't surprise me if the name of Worcester has a Latin etymology, though I can't comment on the castra > cester bit. I like your theory on the dragon of Worcester being Arthur, but unfortunately scholars have already identified a figure earlier on in the prophecies as the Arthur figure. He's named the "Boar of Cornwall"; the location makes more sense since Cornwall is traditionally in the running as a historical site for Camelot, but I have no idea where the "boar" came from. I know that boars are animals of great importance in the Celtic tradition (think Culhwch and Olwen), but otherwise I've never heard of Arthur being associated with boars. Goodness...it's bears and dragons and boars! No wonder it's hard trying to find the historical Arthur. Not only is his name not helpful, but you can't even use heraldic devices...what would you look for? A dragon? A bear? A boar?


I'm sure someone could unravel the contortions of the extended Arthurian story and fit it to these mysterious sayings - a nice thesis for someone!

Yes, but not me! I don't want to touch Merlin's prophecies with a ten foot pole! I think it's been attempted on some level. A quick search of my library's databases brought up 10 articles just on the prophecies in Geoffrey. And this isn't even counting Merlin's prophecies in other texts!

Ooh, do tell some of the stories of the Cerne Giant! I remember seeing pictures of it in my undergrad Arthurian course, and the whole class had a giggle. Talk about phallic symbols! :D Speaking of gigantic chalk figures, doesn't the White Horse of Uffington have some Arthurian lore associated with it?

So, in my Arthur class today we discussed Chretien's Yvain. One thing my professor said which I haven't heard before is that the Moorish herdsman that Calogrenant and then Yvain meet on their way to the magic fountain is possibly a parodic figure of Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa (because the herdsman is specifically mentioned as having a red beard, which in Italian is "Barbarossa"). So the in-joke is that Chretien is making fun of Barbarossa for being a crass "shepherd" of his people who knows nothing of chivalry.

Another big topic of discussion was why Yvain only ties with Gawain in the final scene with the Blackthorn sisters, instead of defeating him. The typical reading is usually that Gawain is the epitome of worldly knights, and that Yvain - in tying with him - becomes Gawain's peer....basically the best knight (and lover) you can be, without getting into religious ground. And obviously Yvain can't beat up his best friend, Gawain, esp. when Gawain defended him from Kay's insults earlier.

But my professor also brought up another political point which I hadn't thought of. This is the first instance of Yvain (although not the first instance of Owain, who's originally a Welsh knight) and you cannot have a newcomer defeating an old favorite like Gawain, esp. (and I thought this was brilliant) considering the historical situation. At the time of Chretien's writing, he is being patronized by Marie of Champagne, who is the daughter of Louis VII of France and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Henry II is king of England but is vassal to Louis VII. Now, here's the interesting part: Eleanor of Aquitaine was married to BOTH men...first Louis, then Henry. So if Chretien is trying to make Yvain the epitome of French knights, he cannot have Yvain defeat the quintessential English knight Gawain without possibly offending the English side of his patroness' family! I thought that was fantastic, and it's so obvious that my professor is coming at this from a historian's PoV, instead of a purely literary one.

One final discussion point. The topic came up of whether or not Chretien was misogynistic. There were a LOT of girls in our class arguing that he was, but relatively speaking, Chretien is so much more tolerant of women than other contemporary romance writers (like coughMalorycough). I personally think he's quite sympathetic to women (how about Lunette for a strong female character?), though not necessarily to the ideals of courtly love. My professor brought up the feminist theory, which I've heard before, that Laudine was never in love with Yvain and only marries him for political reasons. I kind of buy that theory. Thoughts?

On the reading front: I'm almost done with Chretien's Lancelot, which is awesome so far. For next week, I'm going to be reading Chretien's Cliges and the Stanzaic Morte Arthure. Middle English, finally! So if anyone wants to read along, feel free and we can discuss!

[sithkittie]

Too tired for a good reply, but I have to comment on this:


The topic came up of whether or not Chretien was misogynistic.

Oh dear lord what else have they read?! I'm not all that well read for the period, but um.... compared to any (pre-1950s), no. Female characters in roles other than the damsel in distress or the woman plotting against the hero, counts major points for Chretien in my book.

I didn't think Laudine loved Yvain at all. She needed someone to defend her land, and who better than the guy who killed the last guy who was defending it for her? I'd buy the argument either way, that she was hurt by his not making it back at the end of the year or that she saw it as simply that he failed as a husband, for reasons why she exiled him.

Oh, I have to bring this in though. A couple hundred years after the time we're talking about (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12419712), but I thought that was cool that we have nobles working around politics for a love match. I want copies of those letters!! Can I just say, I about died when I read that yesterday, 1000 letters from the 15th century?! Hunting for ways to find copies of that! /squeeing


Yes, but not me! I don't want to touch Merlin's prophecies with a ten foot pole!

And now I have The Grinch song stuck in my head. Thanks...

*edit* ahaha! I love google! (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=cme;idno=Paston)

[Jallan]

Here, here!
Here's what I don't get: how is it romantic to fall in love with a woman who has been married to your king for decades and then run off with her and bring upon the kingdom a giant war that ends in the ruination of all. If she really loved Launcelot and not Arthur, she should've married Lance to begin with.

The story of Lancelot’s and Guenevere’s love affair first appears on Chrétien de Troyes’ Lancelot and in surviving texts only appears later in the prose cyclic Arthurian romances.

It is only the Prose Lancelot and its sequels which provides anything like a full story, and in these Guenevere was already married to King Arthur when Lancelot was still an infant in his cradle. Guenevere was obviously in no position to decide to marry someone who was an infant, and perhaps not yet even born, when she married King Arthur.

Nor did Guenevere exactly “run off” with Lancelot. Rather, in the French Morte d’Artu, when Lancelot and Guenevere were found together, Guenevere did not run off with Lancelot. But Arthur, against the advice of his counselors, was determined to have his wife burned at the stake. Only then did Lancelot and his kinsmen attack the court to rescue Guenevere.

Arthur, in the Prose Lancelot, has in various previous cases shown himself to be an unfaithful husband. King Arthur had cast off Guenevere earlier in exchange for Guenevere’s half-sister, who had deceived Arthur into believing that she was the real Guenevere whom Arthur had married and that the half-sisters had been swapped on the marriage night as part of a treacherous plot. For a summary, see http://www.timelessmyths.com/arthurian/lancelot.html#TwoQueens

Note too, even in Chrétien’s version, how casually Arthur allows Guenevere to be abducted by Meleagant and, so far as is told, makes no attempt to rescue her. A version of Chrétien’s tale is part of the Prose Lancelot in which Arthur fares no better.


He's named the "Boar of Cornwall"; the location makes more sense since Cornwall is traditionally in the running as a historical site for Camelot, but I have no idea where the "boar" came from.

Cornwall covers a large territory within Britain while Camelot, in the medieval Arthurian tales, is only a single, inland city somewhere in Britain. Cornwall is hardly “in the running as a historical site for Camelot”. Camelford within Cornwall is sometimes considered, but the only because the names are not unalike.

Cornwall, at least in part, seems to be Arthur’s home territory in the medieval Welsh Culhwch and Olwen and The Dream of Rhonabwy.


So if Chretien is trying to make Yvain the epitome of French knights, he cannot have Yvain defeat the quintessential English knight Gawain without possibly offending the English side of his patroness' family! I thought that was fantastic, and it's so obvious that my professor is coming at this from a historian's PoV, instead of a purely literary one.

But where is there any evidence that Gawain was a “quintessential English knight”? Within the Arthurian tales, Gawain is a knight of Lothian. And in the French verse romances Gawain remains Arthur’s best knight, only equalled or surpassed by the individual hero of a romances who usually gets married and goes into semi-retirement at the end of the romance, leaving Gawain to be again Arthur’s best knight.

It is only in the late French prose romances that Gawain becomes a lesser figure and rather a villain. A battle between Gawain and another Arthurian knight that is broken off when their identity is discovered occurs in almost every verse Arthurian romance.

That almost all English verse romances, except when based on the late French prose romances, make such a hero of Gawain is no more than almost all French verse romances do. Gawain is never pictured as especially English.

The prophecies that Geoffrey applies to Merlin are quite easy to interpret up to Geoffrey’s own time, whereupon, as one would expect, they don’t appear to have any particular interpretation. The dragon of Worcester only appears among these latter prophecies.

[sithkittie]

This is slightly off topic, but I just finished reading Mists of Avalon. I'd read it when I was 12 and really really did not get it apparently. A+ for idea on that, I do like the view points she used. I remember thinking it got a little flat toward the end though, and this time through I really felt it. It felt like she was forcing stories together where they really didn't fit all that well and then up and left the whole fight between Arthur and Mordred completely open and ended the book. I enjoyed the religious conflicts (answer to my earlier question of thinking anti-magic was a common theme in Arthur! I probably got that from Mists of Avalon) to a point - I think it worked really well, but it was really over done in some parts. That, and I couldn't help but notice the incredibly blatant Buddhist influence in the religion of Avalon as she made it. That struck me as out of place, but maybe I'm just hyper aware of that. And yes, I hated Guinevere, but I hated her in Chretien too. Mostly I just find her useless and annoying, but fanatic Guinevere I really wanted to push off a cliff. I thought the ending was too neat, too. I liked it a lot pretty until pretty much just after the part with Accolon, then it just felt like it peetered out. I really didn't like Morgaine that much either.

It was interesting to read after having read some of the older stories. I was able to keep the characters straight better. Poor Tristan barely got any play time :svengo: haha, not that he fits in very well with the main story anyway. I think my favorite character was Accolon, and I actually liked Lancelot! He actually seemed like a real person for once. I didn't really get his thing with Guinevere, because I hated her, but I liked his relationship with Arthur and how the two conflicted. I also like what she did with Elaine and Lancelot. Gareth was just cute and made me grin.

Speaking of Gawain, he was a blank slate in this one, I thought. He kind of made me think of a big, trusty dog without much personality, definitely one of the good knights though.

I should stop slacking off at work now. Three hours of listening to speaking tests ahead of me… yay.

[Wilde woman]

Welcome Jallan! You seem to be very knowledgeable about Arthuriana. I hope you'll stick around and join us in our discussions.


I didn't think Laudine loved Yvain at all. She needed someone to defend her land, and who better than the guy who killed the last guy who was defending it for her?

See, this is where the feminists have a huge problem with the text. Laudine has just lost her husband, Esclados the Red, yet within a few days she begins accepting Yvain's wooing? And later accepts his marriage proposal despite discovering that he's her husband's murderer?

I buy the idea as well that Laudine never really loved Yvain romantically. It seems much more one-sided. It's Yvain that falls in love (or lust) with Laudine. I think her motives are pretty much political. Arthur is a threat to her kingdom, so she needs to marry someone who'll become the new Storm Knight and protect her interests. And Lunette is really the agent who makes their union possible, both in the original marriage and at the end when she tricks Laudine into reconciling with Yvain. The last scene is hardly the romantic finale we (or I) want; it seems much more practical than anything.

Re: Mists of Avalon. I need to go reread it. And I definitely remember being confuzzled by the Buddhist references. I read somewhere that Marion Zimmer Bradley was dabbling in eastern religions at the time.


Note too, even in Chrétien’s version, how casually Arthur allows Guenevere to be abducted by Meleagant and, so far as is told, makes no attempt to rescue her. A version of Chrétien’s tale is part of the Prose Lancelot in which Arthur fares no better.

In one of the earliest Welsh poems, the dialogue between Arthur and Gwenhyvar, the queen has been abducted by Melwas, and Arthur does indeed come to the isle of glass to rescue her. Another knight - Kay, I believe - has also come with Arthur. And there is nothing in that poem to suggest that Arthur has been unfaithful to his wife.

I would also note that the two sources you cite are both French, a corpus which tends to depict Arthur as a weaker, less sympathetic king than does the English tradition. I would note that particularly the earlier British texts portray Arthur much more sympathetically or tend not to focus on his love life at all.


Cornwall covers a large territory within Britain while Camelot, in the medieval Arthurian tales, is only a single, inland city somewhere in Britain. Cornwall is hardly “in the running as a historical site for Camelot”.

Excuse me. I only meant Camelot has been historically located within Cornwall somewhere. It was intended as a general statement.


But where is there any evidence that Gawain was a “quintessential English knight”? Within the Arthurian tales, Gawain is a knight of Lothian.

Okay, perhaps I should've said Gawain is the quintessential British knight. His origins are Celtic, as you pointed out. Of all the knights, it seems like Gawain is the one most written about in the English romances. That is all I meant. Because my studies have tended to focus on early Arthurian texts (and very little on the French tradition after Chretien), I tend to see a rather Celtic Gawain - one more concerned with what I consider a more primitive warrior tradition than with courtly love and chivalry, which he does become associated with later.

Okay, here are a couple things that stuck out for me about Chretien's Lancelot.

1) To what extent was Chretien critical of or even satirizing the lovesick Lancelot? Since Chretien never finished the romance - and Godfroi's ending was underwhelming - it's hard to know for sure how he felt about Lancelot. I'm of the opinion that he didn't like his task, perhaps only wrote it at the request of his patroness, and thus undercut the supposed honor of his title knight quite a bit.

2) What were Lancelot's origins? I thought this was one of the most fascinating aspects of the story because Chretien does not address it in depth. His mention of Lancelot's childhood with the Lady of the Lake seems incidental to the plot, and we're never told where Lancelot comes from. Yet, we have him interested in freeing the people of Loegres who are imprisoned in Bademagu's kingdom of Gorre. (Also, what was Bademagu's motivation? I thought he was one of the most intriguing characters because he comes across as a very noble character, yet we are supposed to believe he was dishonorably capturing the people of Loegres. And what of his complicated relationship with his son, Meleagaunt? One of the biggest gaps in Godfroi's last sections IMO is that he completely omits Bademagu's response from the final fight scene, in which Lancelot kills Meleagaunt. What are we supposed to make of that?)

3) Lancelot vs. Meleagaunt. Was Lancelot convincing as a hero? I found him problematic. Chretien mentions at one point that Meleagaunt had the potential to be a good knight, but was lacking in mercy. If we take mercy to be one of the virtues of a good knight, Lancelot does not exactly measure up. When the damsel on the mule wants a knight's head, Lancelot is put in a conundrum where he ultimately chooses to kill the knight, instead of offering him mercy. And he is adamant about denying Meleagaunt any mercy, which is striking given his friendly relations with Meleagaunt's father. It makes me wonder exactly what Chretien's chivalric ideals were and (for my own particular interests) how courtly love fit into the equation.

4) Poor Kay! I don't really have a question about him; I just found Chretien's portrayal of him hilarious. Great comic relief! I love how Chretien turns Kay into a petulant little kid. The opening scene is :lol:. Speaking of which...I LOVE Chretien's sense of humor. I especially love how he pokes fun at the chanson de geste tradition. There's a section in the Lancelot where he mocks the long catalogues of knights and their genealogies. And I remember a few lines in Yvain where he makes fun of Roland.

I've got a few more comments to make, but I'll need to consult my notes. Tomorrow. It is now bedtime.

[Jallan]

In one of the earliest Welsh poems, the dialogue between Arthur and Gwenhyvar, the queen has been abducted by Melwas, and Arthur does indeed come to the isle of glass to rescue her. Another knight - Kay, I believe - has also come with Arthur. And there is nothing in that poem to suggest that Arthur has been unfaithful to his wife.

You are referring to the story near the end of Caradoc of Lancarfan’s Life of Gildas. See http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1150-Caradoc-LifeofGildas.htm, section 10, and a dialog between Gwenhwyfar and another knight, of which two versions can be read at http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/melwas.html and at http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/melwas2.html.

This is undoubtedly an earlier version of the story of Meleagant which appears in Chrétien’s Lancelot and in the Prose Lancelot. But this may represent two versions of the tale, rather than one—a version in which Arthur is the hero and a version in which Cei is the hero. Neither of these are in any way in the same continuity as the French Lancelot version in which Arthur, so far as is told, does nothing whatsoever to get Guenevere back. The post on which I was commenting only was only concerned with the Lancelot story.

As to medieval Welsh stories in general, see the Welsh triads, triad lvii (http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/triads/index.htm), in which Arthur is given three mistresses:
Indeg daughter of Garwy the Tall,
and Garwen (“Fair Leg”) daughter of Henin the Old,
and Gwyl (“Modest”) daughter of Gendawd (“Big Chin”).


I would also note that the two sources you cite are both French, a corpus which tends to depict Arthur as a weaker, less sympathetic king than does the En/QWglish tradition. I would note that particularly the earlier British texts portray Arthur much more sympathetically or tend not to focus on his love life at all.

The English tradition also hardly mentions Lancelot at all, save when providing direct adaptations of French Lancelot material. An exception occurs in the Alliterative Morte d’Arthure where Lancelot appears prominently but the author appears to know nothing of Lancelot as Guenevere’s lover. The discussion was concerned with what is now considered to be the standard Lancelot tradition in which Lancelot was Guenevere’s lover. That some other romances don’t use this tradition is quite true, but also quite irrelevant when the affair between Lancelot and Guenevere is the subject of discussion. Similarly Lancelot is very seldom mentioned at all in French verse romances, save in Chrétien’s Lancelot and in the romance Les Merveilles de Rigomer.


Excuse me. I only meant Camelot has been historically located within Cornwall somewhere. It was intended as a general statement.

Various writers have tried to identify Camelot with Colchester or Slack in Yorkshire (both which were called Camulodunum by the Romans), with Cadbury Castle in Somerset, with Camelon in Falkirk, with Winchester, with Westminster (which was a royal residence separate from London in the 12th and 13th centuries) and with many other places. It has not been “historically” identified with any of them, if you mean that any of the many identifications have been generally accepted


Okay, perhaps I should've said Gawain is the quintessential British knight. His origins are Celtic, as you pointed out. Of all the knights, it seems like Gawain is the one most written about in the English romances.

Gawain is indeed most often written about in later English romances. That his origins are “probably” Celtic seems to me to be irrelevant. Yvain’s origins are provably Celtic for that matter. Neither are particularly indicated to be “French” knights, except insomuch as all knighthood in Chrétien and in other French poems is influenced by his awareness of French chivalry.

The English romances of Gawain are all much later than Chrétien. Many of the English romances in which Gawain figures are obviously based on surviving French romances in which Gawain figures. If Gawain continued to be popular in English poems in the 14th and 15th century, Gawain was at least almost as popular in French poems of the same period up to John Froissart's Meliador, the last of the medieval French Arthurian romances. Only in the French prose cyclic romances does Gawain degrade. In French verse romances Gawain remains either best knight or best knight save for the hero of the romances, even in French verse romances written after the prose cyclic romances became popular, and in Claris and Laris, Gawain is best knight save arguably for the two heroes of the romance.

It seems to me dubious that Gawain would be well known to English speakers at all during Chrétien’s lifetime and neither then nor later is Gawain EVER particularly connected to England or to English kings. I don’t see any evidence for your professor’s beliefs that Gawain would have been thought to be especially “English” by Chrétien, or by anyone, or that Yvain would seem to be especially “French”.

The Plantagenet kings of England are arguably connected to Arthurian tales not through Gawain at all, but through Kay, Perceval, and Lancelot in different accounts.

Kay is appointed Count of Anjou by Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae and in Wace’s Romane de Brut, written before Chrétien. Kay’s connection to Anjou also later reappears in the French romance Perlesvaus and in the French romance Livre d’Artus. Gregory of Tours states: “Count Paul with the Romans and Franks made war on the Goths and took booty. When Odoacer came to Angers, king Childeric came on the following day, and slew count Paul, and took the city. In a great fire on that day the house of the bishop was burned.” Jean de Bourdigné, an Angevin priest in his Hystorie agregative des Annales et croniques Daniou, etc., published in 1529, makes this Paul to be the son and heir of Kay and states that Kay was the first count of Anjou. But Chrétien seems to generally ignore the pseudo-history tradition of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Wace. If he were imagining his Kay as an ancestor of the Plantagenets, he would hardly be honoring them by his stories of Kay.

Perceval is named Parzival in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival. A knight named Mazadân marries a fay and becomes the father of two sons: Lazaliez and Brickus. Brickus is father of Uther Pendragon, the father of Arthur. Lazaliez is father of Addanz father of Gandîn (King of Anjou), the father of Gahmuret, the father of Parzival (Perceval) who has two sons in this account. Presumably the current house of Anjou, including Henry II and his descendants are imagined to be Parzival's descendants. When Arthur’s line comes to an end in Britain the house of Anjou might then claim a right to the kingship, although Wolfram never goes into this. But Wolfram does very much emphasize Parzival's Angevin heritage.

In the Prose Lancelot, Lancelot’s father, King Ban, is king of Benwick. Benwick is explicitly identified as lying on the River Loire, bordering on Berry. That is, it is Anjou-Tourraine, or at least the Saumarois portion of Anjou-Tourrraine. See J. Neale Carman’s A Study of the Pseudo-Map Cycle of Arthurian Romance for a complete study of Lancelot geography. Benwick is also clearly identified with Anjou-Tourraine in the Livre d’Artus. According to the Quest of the Holy Grail, the lineages of Lancelot, Lionel, and Bohort ended during the Arthurian period, so they could not be imagined as being ancestors of Henry II. But according to one version of the Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle, after the deaths of Lancelot and his cousins, a son of Lionel still lived, named Lancelot, who was made king of Benwick, Gaunes, and Gaul.

I very much doubt that Chrétien knew anything about any connection between Lancelot and Perceval with the house of Anjou, and I also doubt that he would have known anything about any connection between Gawain and the house of Anjou or between Gawain and an English connection, as such does not appear in any medieval Arthurian text. That Gawain was later popular in English works has no more relation to Chrétien than does Shakespeare’s success with Hamlet show that Saxo Grammaticus’ Amleth was somehow particularly English or that King Lear was particularly English.

Gawain as neither a particularly “English” nor “Angevin” knight. Arthur is usually pictured as fighting the English.


... and we're never told where Lancelot comes from.

In Chrétien’s Lancelot, Lancelot says: “I am a knight, as you may see, and I was born in the kingdom of Logres.” In later tales Lancelot is the son of a king and born outside of Logres. But if Chrétien knew the story that Lancelot was the son of a king, he may have imagined this king’s kingdom to be a sub-kingdom of Logres.


Lancelot is put in a conundrum where he ultimately chooses to kill the knight, instead of offering him mercy.

Lancelot allows the defeated knight mercy be permitting him to re-arm and fight him again without Lancelot moving from the spot. Chrétien seems to think this is a reasonable answer to the conundrum. The knight himself claims he will ask no more. Presumably Meleagant, in Chrétien’s opinion, would not have made such an offer.

Malory applies the story instead to Meleagant (Melliagrance), who also asks mercy in the end. Lancelot, seeing that Guinevere does not wish to gave mercy to Melliagrance, also makes the offer that the combat be refought, which Melliagrance accepts.

[qimissung]

This!! I love that movie. Have you gotten a chance to see any of the new BBC Merlin series yet?

I found Excalibur at the used DVD store the other day, but I wasn't sure about it so I left it. It sounds like I should go pick it up, huh?

(*edit*) And now I have the "Knights of the Round Table" song stuck in my head, and it's going to be there all day.

Have you seen Excalibur yet? Because I would like to recommend it. I saw it when it came out, and loved it. I showed it to my class last week and it was as good as I remembered.

[sithkittie]

Have you seen Excalibur yet?

No, I haven't. I haven't seen it at the store since that post, and that's not something they carry at the rental store here.

Ohohoh! I just read Knight of the Fountain in the Mabinogion two days ago, and the lion was black! I wonder if it's at all related to the big black cat urban legend I heard from Great Britain.

[qimissung]

I have not heard of the big black cat urban legend from Great Britain. Could anybody fill me in?

[Wilde woman]

Oi everyone! Thanks for keeping the thread alive! I'm too tired and ill (2nd round of the flu...boo!) to reply to everything, but I just wanted to post a couple thoughts on Chretien's Cliges. Obviously, SPOILERS follow.

My first impression was that it was much more playful and artistic than Chretien's other romances. I loved the elaborate metaphors. There was one epic simile comparing Soredamour's lovestruck eyes and heart to a candle in a lantern that simply took my breath away. And the bit with the hair-shirt was just gorgeous. I have to admit I reveled in all the courtly love talk. Though admittedly some of the internal debates (does he love me or not?) were long-winded, they fleshed out the characters well and built up to some truly beautiful effects.

I love Chretien's eye for detail. Towards the end, when Cliges is prepping to fight at Arthur's tournament, he brings along four horses of different colors and then has his men buy four sets of arms, all of different colors. The rest is pretty predictable, but I just remember loving the way Chretien matched up the arms and the horses by color. On the first day, Cliges fights as a black knight, and though it's not said explicitly that he's riding the black horse, one can figure it out by elimination (though I have a theory that the name of the horse, "Morel", may have Welsh origins that point to a possible black coat color). On the second day, Cliges fights as a green knight mounted on a "fawn colored horse" and defeats Lancelot. (WHAT?! :willy_nilly:) As soon as I got the oh-no-he-didn't out of my system, I thought what a shame it was that Chretien didn't have him fight Gawain as the Green Knight. That would've been perfect, though SGGK had yet to be written. But anyways, my point (frivolous as it is) is that green and the fawn go beautifully together. :biggrin5: Then for the last two days, he matches the red armor with the chestnut horse, and the white arms with the white Arabian (stolen from the Duke of Saxony). Chretien the couturier! I love it! :nod:

A major theme, I felt, that ran throughout the story was deception vs. truth. There were so many examples of untrue or deceitful men, even some passages of self-deception, that it made the honest characters really stick out. I wonder if Chretien meant to tie this theme in with his role as a poet. Our modern cliche is that "artists use lies to tell the truth" or something like that, so I wonder Chretien deliberately invested this story with such ornate language to play up that aspect of his artistry. Thoughts?

For all the emphasis on courtly love and aesthetics, there was also quite a lot of fighting. It made for an interesting dynamic to see such different sides of Alexander and Cliges. One minute they're out running their lances through enemies' hearts and the next they're afraid to look their beloved in the eye.

BUT I didn't like the ending; it felt like a tease. Chretien gets us all hyped up. First, Thessala (b/c she's from Thessaly, get it? :frown2:) makes a potion which puts Fenice into a dead-but-not state, but the king's doctors suddenly remember Solomon(?) and decide to "test" if she's dead. And by "test", they mean torture her horribly while she's asleep. (Actually, is she asleep? I wasn't clear on that. My translation didn't clarify. It seems like she physically resembles a sleeping/dead person, but is conscious of what's happening to her body?) Anyways, it's a really creepy semi-pornographic passage that made me sick. What did you guys think?

Anyways, Chretien gets us all worked up with poor Fenice's torture and then all seems lost when John spills the beans. Cliges goes running to Arthur to help him and Arthur amasses this gigantic international army. Justice will be served, and Cliges will finally get his birthright. And then.....nothing. It's so anticlimactic. And Alis just dies??? (BTW, it's interesting that he dies out of grief because he cannot find Cliges. That, I think, complicates his character quite a bit. We cannot just stereotype Alis as your typical villain if he not only is able to feel sympathy for the man WHO JUST FAKED HIS WIFE'S DEATH TO CUCKOLD HIM, but actually dies from the grief. What are we to make of that?) My point is that the ending seemed too contrived. It was too easy.

I can see why some scholars think that Cliges is a satire of the Tristan story. The "wet-dream potion" (as I'm calling it) was particularly hilarious. But I'm not sure I agree that this is a critique of Tristan. There are some lines where Chretien blatantly says that Tristan and Isolde's love was dishonorable, but I'm not convinced that Cliges-Fenice provide a better exemplar. More on that later.

Also, how about Thessala and John for fascinating characters?

Finally before I forget, does anyone know the etymology of the name Cliges? I'm wondering if the character is at all related to Sir Cleges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Cleges), the protagonist of a Middle English romance I read last year. There is an Arthurian connection in that Cleges seeks help from Uther Pendragon when he's down on his luck. But other than that, there don't seem to be many parallels. I wouldn't even have made the connection if a passage in Cliges hadn't struck me. One of the first times we see Cliges is when Alexander tells him the importance of largesse to a knight's reputation. He orders Cliges to spend generously to show his largesse. In comparison, Sir Cleges gets into deep debt and loses everything exactly because he's a spendthrift knight. It makes me wonder if the Cleges poet borrowed the name of Chretien's knight in a somewhat parodying manner.


Have you seen Excalibur yet? Because I would like to recommend it. I saw it when it came out, and loved it.

I did! I downloaded it and watched it a few months ago. It was EPIC! I quite enjoyed the scenes with Merlin. But we can discuss more later. When I've gotten some sleep.

[kasie]

Sorry to have been so long getting back to the thread - I've been away for a few days.

I have been mulling over the etymology of Uther/Arthur and being a Welsh student, albeit of Modern Welsh rather than Old Welsh, I browsed through my Welsh dictionary in search of possible derivations and found this: urdd pronounced = an order of monks, which has come from [I]urddo = to ordain and urddedig = ordained and honoured. So I have been wondering if 'Uther' is derived from this and is not a name but an honorific, 'The Ordained One', 'The Honoured One' or 'The King'. 'Arthur' could well have the same derivation, given not only differing pronunciations in different parts of Wales, not to mention changes in pronunciation over time, but also the (long-running) love of the Welsh in confusing the English over the correct pronunciation of Welsh!

'Pendragon' bothers me a little: Pen certainly means 'Head' and though the word for dragon is ddraig, [thraig] it would mutate to draig [draig] with 'pen' in front of it (don't even begin to ask about mutations, they are the bane of my life) and could easily become anglicised into 'dragon'. But Pen can also mean 'Last' and as no-one seems to have born the name Pendragon after Uther, he would therefore have been the Last Dragon.

I then looked up Owain: there is some confusion about the origin and meaning of the name, given variously as 'man of yew' or 'youth'. However the word Arwain means 'to lead' or in the sense of an orchestra 'to conduct'. See above for changes in pronunciation! It struck me that this meaning is not far from the meaning of Dux Bellorum. Then I thought of Owain's name 'Ddantgwyn' and wondered if the 'white tooth' in question could have been a tusk, making him the 'Leader who was a Boar'.....

Then I tried for 'Camelot' and came up with camu [camee] 'to bend' and lloches [lockus] 'a refuge' - would it be too much to stretch this to mean 'a place of safety in the bend of a river'? Modern day Wroxeter/ancient Viroconium is in the angle made by the confluence of the Teme and the Severn though many other fortified places are in a similar strategically strong position, of course.

Just a few off-topic thoughts! :biggrin5:

[Jallan]

Finally before I forget, does anyone know the etymology of the name Cliges? I'm wondering if the character is at all related to Sir Cleges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Cleges), the protagonist of a Middle English romance I read last year. There is an Arthurian connection in that Cleges seeks help from Uther Pendragon when he's down on his luck. But other than that, there don't seem to be many parallels. I wouldn't even have made the connection if a passage in Cliges hadn't struck me. One of the first times we see Cliges is when Alexander tells him the importance of largesse to a knight's reputation. He orders Cliges to spend generously to show his largesse. In comparison, Sir Cleges gets into deep debt and loses everything exactly because he's a spendthrift knight. It makes me wonder if the Cleges poet borrowed the name of Chretien's knight in a somewhat parodying manner.

Cligés and Lancelot appears to have been the least popular of Chrétien’s surviving works, unknown in surviving translations or adaptations whereas Erec et Enide, Yvain and Perceval are well known in German, Scandinavian, and Welsh adaptations, and for the last two, in Middle-English adaptations.

Lancelot as a character is at least often mentioned elsewhere, but not so with Cligés. He appears elsewhere, so far as I know, only in one passage in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s “Parzival”.

That said, it seems to me quite possible the Clegis of English Arthurian romances may owe his name to Chrétien’s Cligés, but that the English authors know nothing more about him save that he is an Arthurian knight.

Clegis is merely listed in two manuscripts of The Awntyrs of Arthure at Tarne athelyne. In the Allitertive Morte Arthure he is a more important figure, but is not said to be a nephew or any other relative of Gawain and is pictured as a very British knight as opposed to the Romans. See http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/allitfrm.htm , beginning at line 1649. The author does not appear to make him a Greek knight as is Chrétien’s Cligés.

It is from the Alliterative Morte Arthure that he appears to have gotten into Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur, first in the Roman war section, from which Malory then takes him as one of Lancelot’s followers.

The Clegis of the romance you mention must also be considered as another character, possibly owing his name only to Chrétien’s Cligés. See http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/clegefrm.htm . It is indeed possible but unprovable that some reference to Cligés’ generosity occurred in a poem or an oral mention that was known to the author of “Sir Cliges”.


I have been mulling over the etymology of Uther/Arthur and being a Welsh student, albeit of Modern Welsh rather than Old Welsh, I browsed through my Welsh dictionary in search of possible derivations and found this: urdd pronounced = an order of monks, which has come from [I]urddo = to ordain and urddedig = ordained and honoured. So I have been wondering if 'Uther' is derived from this and is not a name but an honorific, 'The Ordained One'
Uthyr occurs definitely as a name in various texts. Walter Map in his De Nugis Curialum II, chapter 26, refers to a certain Cardolan filius Uther and in the Irish dialog Immacallam in dá Thuarad (‘The Colloquy of the Two Sages’) The poet Adnae is the son of one Uthir.

Also uthyr/uthr ‘terrible’ is a very common adjective in medieval Welsh poetry. You might as well claim that English “other” is derived from “earth”.


'Pendragon' bothers me a little: Pen certainly means 'Head' and though the word for dragon is ddraig, [thraig] it would mutate to draig [draig] with 'pen' in front of it (don't even begin to ask about mutations, they are the bane of my life) and could easily become anglicised into 'dragon'. But Pen can also mean 'Last' and as no-one seems to have born the name Pendragon after Uther, he would therefore have been the Last Dragon.

Pendragon works well enough either as meaning figuratively either “foremost leader” or “chief of warriors”. Draig and dragon both appear in medieval Welsh poetry meaning “warrior/warriors”. Ddraig is the soft mutation form of draig, not the normal form. It is probably from Latin draco. Dragon would be from the gentive singular from draconis or from the nominative plural form dracones.

Considering how often draig and dragon are used to mean “warrior” in medieval Welsh verse, Uthyr would not have been the last one.


I then looked up Owain: there is some confusion about the origin and meaning of the name, given variously as 'man of yew' or 'youth'.
According to Rachel Bromwich in her Trioedd Ynys Prydein:

L. Eugenius > O.W. Oug(u)ein, Eug(u)ein (see Thurneysen, Zeitschrft für deutsche Philologie XXVIII, p. 91, n. 1; LHEB 324, 370, n.) ... The corresponding Irish form is Eógan.

An alternative explanation which has been advocated for the Irish and Welsh forms of this name is that both derive from Celt. Esugenos ‘engendered of Esos’, i.e. the god Esos, for whose cult in Gaul some evidence has survived. ... But it is to be noted that W. Owein, etc., is normally latinized as Eugenius (see CLIH xxvi; Chadwick, The Growth of Literature I, p. 145, n. 2) and it seems most natural to regard both the Welsh and Irish forms as derivatives of the Latin (see GPN 200, n. 9).



Then I tried for 'Camelot' and came up with camu [camee] 'to bend' and lloches [lockus] 'a refuge' - would it be too much to stretch this to mean 'a place of safety in the bend of a river'? Modern day Wroxeter/ancient Viroconium is in the angle made by the confluence of the Teme and the Severn though many other fortified places are in a similar strategically strong position, of course.
Cam(b)- means “crooked” and is usually so interpreted in the name Camlann (‘Crooked bank’).

The Fort At River’s Bend (The Camulod Chronicles book 5) by Jack Whyte refers to the fort of Mediabogdum.

One really gets nowhere with playing around with possible etymologies of names, especially with a name like Camaalot which, if authentic, would be a French distortion of a Breton version of a Welsh name. But Camaalot does not appear in any native Welsh text save for Y Seint Greal which is a translation from the French. There the name just appears as “Camalot” with no indication that the translator had a clue where it was supposed to be.

Camelot is, except for one example, similarly unknown in English Arthurian romances, save when translating or adapting French romances that mention it: The History of the Holy Grail, Merlin, Arthour and Merlin, Lancelot of the Laik, the Stanzaic Morte d’Arthur, and Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur. The exception is “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” which, judging from the names which appears in lists of knights in the tale, was written by an author who knew the French Prose Lancelot and the French Mort d’Artu in both of which Camelot is often mentioned.

[kasie]

As I said, I'm not an expert, just a Modern Welsh learner mulling things over, dictionaries in hand (as is usual where Welsh is concerned).

I've further didcovered that udd means a lord.

And of course you are right about the mutation of draig/ddraig: I told you mutations were the bane of my life - please don't tell my long-suffering tutor I got it wrong [I]again.

Don't think I'd make that claim for other/earth: other comes from Old English, doesn't it?

[Jallan]

I've further discovered that udd [ith] means a lord.

Udd ‘lord’ is pronounced [yð] in medieval pronunciation. Welsh uthyr ‘terrible’ is pronounced [ˈyθɨr] in medieval pronunciation. The words are not at all related to one another. The sounds [ð] and [θ] are not confused with one another in either Welsh or English, although in modern English both are spelled as th.

The word u/ỽth(y)r means ‘terrible’ or ‘wonderful’ again and again in medieval Welsh. It is a common word. There is NO mystery in its meaning.


Don't think I'd make that claim for other/earth: other comes from Old English, doesn't it?
Both other and earth come from Old English. But if one would not make a claim that they are related, why would one suggest that Welsh urdd and uth(y)r are related? Those Welsh words are not much more alike than the English words.

Etymology is a very complex subject and highly scientific because languages mostly change according to strict rules. For medieval Welsh, the best book is Language and history in early Britain: a chronological survey of the Brittonic languages, 1st to 12th c. A.D. by Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson.

[kasie]

As I said, I'm not an expert, just a Modern Welsh learner mulling things over, dictionaries in hand (as is usual where Welsh is concerned).

Looks like I was on completely the wrong track. Apologies if my casual thoughts have confused anyone.

[sithkittie]

I think they're pretty interesting. Please don't stop. It's fun to toss around ideas, even if they're not necessarily correct. That's what discussions are for. We're not all experts in a given field, though it's fun to talk with those who are. :( I've never seriously studied literature. I just like to read and discuss what I'm learning.

In a (possibly vain) attempt to switch to a lighter topic, I finally saw Excalibur. It uh.. well the acting left a lot to be desired, but it was certainly interesting. I liked Merlin. I didn't really get where he fit into the story, but his reactions were good. Other than that... I was too busy playing MST3K to actually pay too much attention to what was going on. I think I'll have to watch it again when I'm less sleep-deprived and giddy.

Also! I found a wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_big_cats) on the big cat urban legend I heard. I know there's more out there on it, I just have to look it up. I heard it back in high school, actually when we were talking about urban legends in... history? or lit, I don't remember which. I was told they were native to Britain but their existence was a bit like Bigfoot in that people see them but scientists haven't recorded them. Occasionally they make off with pets, people see them at night, like a panther is what I was told. The article has some different information, but that's the fun of urban legends. I thought it was interesting that the lion in the Mabinogion was black too. That seems like less common of a color than a typical lion or tiger imported from Africa would be.

[Jallan]

I thought it was interesting that the lion in the Mabinogion was black too. That seems like less common of a color than a typical lion or tiger imported from Africa would be.

In Chrétien’s Yvain and descendant versions, no color is assigned to the lion. I presume that the default tawny color of lions is to be understood, or at least what the poets and tale tellers imagined to be the color of lions. In medieval times lions were to be seen in royal menageries in Europe and so their color would be known by many. In heraldry lions are normally colored or, that is “gold”, but may appear colored in any tincture, as is true of any animal.

But, as pointed out, the author of the Welsh Lady of the Fountain provides a distinct and unusual color to the lion. In the version of the tale in the Red Book of Hergest, the color is white. In the version of the tale in the White Book of Rhydderch, the color is black. There is no way of determining why the originator of the Welsh version ancestral to the versions in the Red Book and the White Book applied an odd color to the lion and no way of determining why a later copyist changed the color.

It is possible that there is some heraldic reason for these colors.

[sithkittie]

On my first encounter with the lion I had pictured a mountain lion, then thought about it some and thought maybe it was referring to an African lion or some menagerie escapee. I did some digging a while back on European big cats, and there is quite a history of non-imported big cats there. I don't necessarily see that everything written has to have some deeper meaning or imagery, and when it does I'm usually the last to pick up on it. And since, you're right, there's no way of determining why, I'm musing over the possibility that it has something to do with another legend, that being the existence of large black cats in the UK.

[Wilde woman]

Hi! I haven't died, I swear. Last week was my Spring Break, so I was out of town. Now I'm back busier than ever, but that also means I'm reading lots of Arthurian stuff. This week, for class, we read the Alliterative Morte Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight :hurray:, and a portion of the Merlin section of the Vulgate cycle. Thoughts on those texts in a bit.


I have been mulling over the etymology of Uther/Arthur and being a Welsh student, albeit of Modern Welsh rather than Old Welsh, I browsed through my Welsh dictionary in search of possible derivations and found this: urdd pronounced = an order of monks, which has come from [I]urddo = to ordain and urddedig = ordained and honoured. So I have been wondering if 'Uther' is derived from this and is not a name but an honorific, 'The Ordained One', 'The Honoured One' or 'The King'.

Hmmm, interesting. The only etymology I've ever heard for Uther is the one Jallan mentioned, meaning "terrible". I'm especially interested in "the ordained one"...I wonder if this means the kingship had some sort of religious component, like a priest-king. If so, I wonder if he would've been Christian?

Re: Cliges. Is he Greek in the Parzival? And, yes, he is most definitely British in the AMA.


According to Rachel Bromwich in her Trioedd Ynys Prydein:

L. Eugenius > O.W. Oug(u)ein, Eug(u)ein (see Thurneysen, Zeitschrft für deutsche Philologie XXVIII, p. 91, n. 1; LHEB 324, 370, n.) ... The corresponding Irish form is Eógan.

An alternative explanation which has been advocated for the Irish and Welsh forms of this name is that both derive from Celt. Esugenos ‘engendered of Esos’, i.e. the god Esos, for whose cult in Gaul some evidence has survived. ...

If Bromwich said it, I'm inclined to believe it. So if we go with the Latin, what is the etymology for Eógan? And for the alternative, what is Esos god of?


I found a wikipedia article on the big cat urban legend I heard. I know there's more out there on it, I just have to look it up. I heard it back in high school, actually when we were talking about urban legends in... history? or lit, I don't remember which. I was told they were native to Britain but their existence was a bit like Bigfoot in that people see them but scientists haven't recorded them. Occasionally they make off with pets, people see them at night, like a panther is what I was told.

Haha! I like that they call them ABCs! :D And they mention Palug's Cat which I pointed out earlier! Neat! I'd heard about the Black Dog urban legend before (primarily b/c of the Sherlock Holmes tale), but this is new. Thanks for sharing.

Back to Arthur: Perhaps the most striking thing about the Alliterative Morte Arthur for me was the characterization of Mordred. In the scene where he is assigned as Arthur's regent (as Arthur goes off to fight Emperor Lucius), Mordred actually protests! He explicitly tells Arthur that he is not worthy to be regent and asks him to choose someone else. It's actually somewhat touching because he says he'd rather go with Arthur (i.e. risk his life fighting against Lucius) than stay at home and rule with "Waynor" (Guinevere). But Arthur refuses and orders him to stay. It's such a fascinating twist on the conventional plot because IMO it squarely puts the blame on Arthur. (In the Stanzaic Morte Arthure, Arthur's advisers recommend him to put Mordred in charge, so that Arthur could - ostensibly - pass the blame, but not here.)

So when Mordred actually does betray Arthur, it hurts even more. The AMA author includes some particularly nasty details not seen in other versions. For example, Mordred not only marries Waynor, but impregnates her! And Arthur, in his death scene, specifically tells his knights to hunt down and kill Mordred's sons, implying that they are still alive! Secondly, Waynor apparently betrays Arthur willingly because she gives Mordred Arthur's ceremonial sword (not Excalibur, which Arthur carries on his person). This sword is Clarent, a sword supposed to be used only during public ceremonies like coronations and dubbings; in other words, it has never shed blood. According to Arthur, only Waynor knew where he had hidden Clarent so the fact that Arthur sees Mordred wielding it is a sure sign that Waynor was in on the conspiracy.

BUT Waynor doesn't stay with Mordred. When she learns that Arthur has come back to wage war against Mordred, she disobeys Mordred and flees to Caerlion to become a nun. Unfortunately, that's the last we hear of her. (The AMA doesn't feature many women in general, only Waynor and the two women victimized by the giant of Mt. St. Michel.) It seems like Arthur forgives her in his deathbed speech, but we never see her again.

So anyways, why do you guys think the poet developed Mordred's character as he did? I've given my thoughts...it's partly to put the blame on Arthur's shoulders. Anyone else?

A couple of other to discuss about the AMA when I get the chance are the giant of Mt. St. Michel (a really entertaining scene!), Priamus, Arthur's two prophetic dreams (both of which are described in gorgeous detail), and Gawain's death (which is possibly the most touching moment in the whole poem).

[Jallan]

I'm especially interested in "the ordained one"...I wonder if this means the kingship had some sort of religious component, like a priest-king. If so, I wonder if he would've been Christian?

Urddo ‘ordain’ is not at all related to the name Uthyr. It just somewhat resembles it.


Re: Cliges. Is he Greek in the Parzival? And, yes, he is most definitely British in the AMA.

He is just mentioned in Parzival as a knight at Arthur’s court with no other information given. This seems to me to be typical of many knights, who are given contradictory back stories (or no back story) when they appear in different romances.

Sagremor may be the best example. In the Parzival Sagremor is Guenevere’s nephew. In the Prose Lancelot Sagremor is twice said to be relatively low-born. In the Vulgate Merlin, Livre d’Artus, and Post-Vulgate Merlin, Sagremor is the grandson of the Emperor of Constantinople. The Vulgate Merlin also makes Sagremor out to be the son of an unnamed King of Vlask and Hungary by the Emperor’s daughter, the emperor here being named as Adrian/Hadrian. Sagremor travels from Constantinople to Britain with a troop of knights, much like Alexander in Cligés. Sagremor is heir to the imperial throne, though nothing is made of this. In the Post-Vulgate Merlin Sagremor is the son of a king named Nabur, kingdom unnamed but seemingly near or part of Britain. In Froissart’s Meliador, Sagremor is the son of the unnamed King of Ireland.


So if we go with the Latin, what is the etymology for Eógan? And for the alternative, what is Esos god of?

For the Latin form Eugenius, see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Eugene . Eógan would just be the form it took in Old Irish. For Esos see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esus .


And Arthur, in his death scene, specifically tells his knights to hunt down and kill Mordred’s sons, implying that they are still alive!

In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account Mordred has two sons who attempt to take over the kingdom after their father's death and Arthur's vanishing. They are slain by Constantine who is Arthur’s proper successor. I believe that the command by Arthur in the Allitiverative Morte Arthure is referring to these sons, who must be imagined to be much older than any children that Mordred fathered on Guenevere. The author may not know this and have invented the idea that Mordred fathered children on Guenevere.


When she learns that Arthur has come back to wage war against Mordred, she disobeys Mordred and flees to Caerlion to become a nun.

Actually it is Mordred who, in respect to Waynor:

Bade her ferken o-fer * and flee with her childer
Whiles he might wile him away * and win to her speche.

As to why the author treated Mordred differently from other accounts it may be:

1.) He invented what he thought was a more interesting story.
2.) He copied it from a source other than those that have survived. (This is the only surviving medieval work, other than the medieval Welsh Dream of Rhonabwy, in which Medrawd/Mordred is also Arthur’s foster son.)

[Mariamosis]

(The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights) I didn't read all of the posts to see if this had been mentioned, nor have I read this book. Steinbeck, however, was an amazing author and therefore I can't imagine this book being bad.

[Wilde woman]

(The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights) I didn't read all of the posts to see if this had been mentioned, nor have I read this book. Steinbeck, however, was an amazing author and therefore I can't imagine this book being bad.

Mariamosis - I haven't finished reading the Steinbeck, but I have a nostalgic story about it. When I was visiting schools to choose a graduate program, I knew I wanted to somewhere that had an Arthurian specialist. When I visited the school I'm at now, I'd already read a book on American Arthuriana by the Arthurian specialist here. So when I met the author and had a chat with him about his book, I mentioned that I was fascinated by his section on the Steinbeck book (which I'd never heard of). When he heard this, he immediately went over to his bookshelf (which is ALL Arthuriana), grabbed the Steinbeck, and gave it to me. It was a very special moment for me, because I admired his work so much and it was the first time that anyone at any of these schools had shown me such unprecedented generosity. Now, I'm not only studying here, but I actually work in the medieval library under the same man! And I've found him as kind now as he was then....he has a habit of giving away books to his students, not just random starry-eyed prospectives. ;)

I've only read the first few chapters, so I haven't formed much of an opinion on it, but I know that it is unfinished. Steinbeck died before he could finish writing it. :(


In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account Mordred has two sons who attempt to take over the kingdom after their father's death and Arthur's vanishing. They are slain by Constantine who is Arthur’s proper successor. I believe that the command by Arthur in the Allitiverative Morte Arthure is referring to these sons, who must be imagined to be much older than any children that Mordred fathered on Guenevere. The author may not know this and have invented the idea that Mordred fathered children on Guenevere.

Thank you, Jallan. I'd completely forgotten about this episode in Geoffrey. The AMA poet must've gotten this bit from Geoffrey.


Actually it is Mordred who, in respect to Waynor:

Bade her ferken o-fer * and flee with her childer
Whiles he might wile him away * and win to her speche.

While it is Mordred who asks her to flee with her children, he asks her to go to Ireland to meet him. Waynor, instead, flees to Caerlion to become a nun:


[Mordred] Bade her ferken o-fer * and flee with her childer
Whiles he might wile him away * and win to her speche,
Ayer into Ireland * into those oute-mountes,
And wonne there in wilderness * within tho waste lands.

Then sho yermes and yeyes * at York in her chamber,
.................................................. .......................
Sho kaires to Caerlion * and caught her a veil,
Askes there the habit * in honour of Crist
And all for falshed and fraud * and fere of her lord! (ll.3907-18)

Waynor obviously feels guilty about her betrayal, but it's unclear exactly what brings on that guilt. Another interpretation is, given that she only becomes a nun after she learns that Arthur is marching home to wage war on Mordred, one could argue that she does it out of fear. She's afraid Arthur may win the war against Mordred and so fears that he'll then punish her for her betrayal. I wish the author had explored her motivations more clearly. Anyways, in this quoted section, I love that last line because it's ambiguous whether "her lord" refers to Arthur or God.

In my Arthur class for this (and next) week, we're reading Malory (the Winchester edition). Unfortunately we're not reading the entire text, but the only two books we're skipping are the sections on Gareth and Tristram (sorry sithkittie). I admit, though, I'm secretly glad we're not reading the Tristan because IMO it's the most tedious section. (And I just don't like Tristan.) The first time I read Malory, I was invested up until the Tristan section, and then gave up reading because I simply couldn't make it through.

I'm actually enjoying rereading Malory much more than I thought I would. Having Malory's sources - Geoffrey, the Alliterative Morte, Stanzaic Morte, and (a little of) the Vulgate cycle - fresh in my head, I'm finding Malory much richer than I remember. I think he strikes a remarkable balance between including many interesting details and shortening the very very very long Vulgate material. I used to think him long-winded and boring, but now I find his style surprisingly swift and action-packed. It's amazing what knowing the sources can do to change your interpretation.

My favorite episode so far is Balin and Balan; it's such a remarkable section and Malory is ingenious in using it to set up so many of the problems that will plague Arthur later. I'm thinking of writing my seminar paper on this section, and so I'm trying to find analogues of the B&B tale. I only know of the B&B section in the Vulgate cycle and a separate thirteenth-century French romance called The Knight of the Two Swords (Li chevaliers as deus epees), in which the protagonist is named Meriadeuc. BUT from what I've read about the latter, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with B&B. :confused5: Has anyone read it? Could someone confirm/deny its relevance to Balin and Balan?

If anyone would like to discuss Malory, let me know. We're finishing it (except for Gareth and Tristram) next week, so I'll have it fresh in my mind.

FINALLY, Starz aired the first episode of its new series, Camelot, a few weeks ago. It was available streaming online for a while, and I was able to see it, but now it's no longer up. :( Sorry, I meant to share the link but I kept forgetting. Did anyone see it? I thought the first episode was decent, though there was quite a lot of gratuitous nudity and sex. In fact, when we're first introduced to Arthur, he's naked! Starz is premiering the 1st season next week, starting April 1. They'll show episodes 1 AND 2 next week. I was struck by how different (read: adult) it was compared to BBC's family-friendly show Merlin. Here's the poster for it:

http://alltvshows4u.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/camelot-2011-starz-poster-01-550x366.jpg

Yes, that's Eva Green as Morgan! They've got a great cast. Joseph Fiennes (Ralph Fiennes' brother) plays Merlin (http://www.starz.com/originals/Camelot/Cast/Merlin) and the very sexy James Purefoy plays Lot (http://camelotfans.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/james-purefoy.jpg). :blush5: (Ironically, the first time I saw Purefoy was in another medieval movie - A Knight's Tale - where he also played the villain.) I'm not sure I like the actor playing Arthur. Jamie Campbell Bower (pictured above) is relatively unknown and is in the Twilight movies (bleh!) and in the last Harry Potter film, so has lots of teenage girl fans. I admit, I'm attracted to Kay (http://www.starz.com/originals/Camelot/Cast/Kay), which I thought would never happen. :D Obviously, Starz is going for eye candy, but the actual acting looks like it has promise too. Set your DVRs!

And now I'm off to read about the medieval forest. I'm frantically trying to finish it for tomorrow...I'll probably have to pull an all-nighter, but at least there's lots and lots of Arthurian stuff in there. :yesnod:

[sithkittie]

I'm too distracted by the constant quakes to comment on much... but wasn't James Purefoy the Black Prince in A Knight's Tale? Was he supposed to be a villain? Totally missed that if it he was. :P Either way, mmm, yum... which makes me do a double take and go, "Lot?? Really?" I always had him pictured as old and decidedly unattractive. Kinda like Kay, not gonna lie, I don't think I could find any actor playing Kay attractive simply for the fact that he's .. playing Kay

Your description of the show makes me think of the really bad version of Beowulf that came out a few years ago (okay, maybe more like 5 or so now...). It also makes me have to ask, have you seen the movie King Arthur? I found it for like 500 yen the other day and decided it was worth adding to my crappy movies collection. It didn't let me down, though it wasn't quite as abysmal as I expected... or maybe I was just too geeked about the leather armor and sword bashing. Still pretty abysmal though.

I had no idea Steinbeck had a book, and now I must hunt it down. I love Steinbeck... even though most of his books make me either feel sick or really really done with humanity... maybe I should wait on that for a while. I've been "reading" Mark Twain for the last couple weeks... and by that I mean it's been sitting on my desk utterly unloved because I fall asleep when I try to read lately. I'd love to re-read (and finish) Malory... it's probably not going to happen any time soon though.

Sorry about the lack of worthwhile input (read as: input at all) in the last couple weeks. I'm not in the danger zone in Japan really, but everybody's freaking out about radiation, there are still tremors at least once an hour, and mostly it's just chaos and I'm doing my best not to think too hard and just survive the next two weeks until I can be not here anymore.

[Jallan]

While it is Mordred who asks her to flee with her children, he asks her to go to Ireland to meet him. Waynor, instead, flees to Caerlion to become a nun

I had misunderstood the word ayer to mean ‘or’. You are quite right.


I only know of the B&B section in the Vulgate cycle and a separate thirteenth-century French romance called The Knight of the Two Swords (Li chevaliers as deus epees), in which the protagonist is named Meriadeuc. BUT from what I've read about the latter, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with B&B. :confused5: Has anyone read it? Could someone confirm/deny its relevance to Balin and Balan?

The first part of Li chevaliers as deus epees parallels the first part of the story of Balain in the Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle. It is possible that the creator of the Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle knew Li chevaliers as deus epees and simply used part of it to construct the first part of his story of Balain. But that is only a guess. It is also possible that both authors drew on some common source. Almost anything is possible.

After the conquest of King Ris/Rion/Rience by Meriadeuc/Balain/Balin, the Meriaduec versions and Balain/Balin versions have nothing at all in common. The Balain/Balin version seems to be a variant of the grail adventure of Gawain in the First Continuation to Chrétien’s Perceval: http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/g01.html .

The king who is attacking Arthur in both versions is a king who takes the beards from those he has conquered. References to such a king being conquered by Arthur go back to Geoffrey of Monmouth where, after slaying the Giant of St. Michael’s Mount, Arthur recalls another battle:


He told them he had found none of such strength, since he killed the giant Ritho, who had challenged him to fight, upon the mountain Aravius [Eryri]. This giant had made himself furs of the beards of kings he had killed, and had sent word to Arthur carefully to cut off his beard and send it to him; and then, out of respect to his pre-eminence over other kings, his beard should have the honour of the principal place. But if he refused to do it, he challenged him to a duel, with this offer, that the conqueror should have the furs, and also the beard of the vanquished for a trophy of his victory. In his conflict, therefore, Arthur proved victorious, and took the beard and spoils of the giant: and, as he said before, had met with none that could be compared to him for strength, till his last engagement.

Arthur’s victory over Ritho/Rions is mentioned in some other romances, including Chrétien’s Perceval where the return of most of Arthur’s men to their own homes after the battle is given as the reason why so few knights are with Arthur that the Red Knight can so easily get away with spilling wine over Guenevere.

In Li chevaliers as deus epees, the king’s name has the form Ris. Ris is captured single-handedly by Meriadeuc and forced to surrender to Arthur. The author of the Balain story (or his source) seems to recognize that Ris ought to be identical with Ritho/Rions and so brings in a more standard version of the story in which the king is called Rion and a brother named Nero is introduced who disguises himself as Ritho/Rion and fights in his place allowing both versions of the tale to be included. The name Nero might in origin be an anagram of Rion, that is Niro, influenced by a memory of the Roman Emperor Nero.

For the beginning of an English translation of Li chevaliers as deus espees, see http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/Knight_Two_Swords.pdf . For selections from the story of Balain in the Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle, see http://books.google.ca/books?id=klsMZ41xAREC&lpg=PP1&dq=intitle%3Alancelot&pg=PA46#v=onepage&q&f=false . For a Middle English translation of the only complete account of Arthur himself against Rion, see http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=cme;cc=cme;rgn=div1;view=text;idno=Merlin;no de=Merlin%3A31 .

On checking out Wolfram’s Parzival I find that I misremembered. Cligés is referred to as “the Greek” by Wolfram.

In Chrétien’s Perceval, after Gawain and Perceval make peace, King Arthur and his folk lead Perceval back to Carlion. After three days, the loathly damsel comes to court and announces various adventure to the court, and upbraids Perceval for not asking about the lance and grail.

In Wolfram’s account, after Gawain and Parzival make peace, Arthur and his folk have a picnic in the forest. At that point the loathly damsel appears, upbraids Parzival for not asking about the grail and then announces the adventure of the Castle of Wonders, an obvious reference to the adventure later achieved by Gawain in both romances.

In Wolfram’s tale, many knights then set out to see the Castle of Wonders. But one knight is familiar with the adventure, as translated by A.T. Hatto in the Penguin edition:

‘I failed to come up to the mark there,’ Clias the Greek openly admitted. ‘The Turkoyt thrust me over my crupper, to my shame. Nevertheless he named me four ladies there who are entitle to wear crowns. Two of them are old, two very young. One of these is called Itonje, the second is Cundrie; the third lady is Arnive, and the fourth Sangive.’

The Turkoyt is later revealed to be Florant of Itolac, who is in love with Gawain’s mother. The meaning of Turkoyt is unknown, possibly only supposed to be a title in some foreign tongue. Itonje is the Gawain’s sister whom the continuation to Chrétien calls Clarissant. Kundrie is another sister not mentioned in other versions of this tale. Arnive is Arthur’s mother. Sangive is Gawain’s mother.

Since in Wolfram Parzival only visits Arthur’s court twice, once when he slays the Red Knight and once when he makes peace with Gawain, his presence at a tournament at Oxford when he was defeated by Cligés/Clias is not possible in Wolfram’s account. Either Wolfram here did not care about the continuity, had forgotten it, or knew a version of the story of Cligés in which Perceval did not appear.

[Wilde woman]

Sithkittie - I hope things are okay for in Japan. Obviously Arthurian lit isn't your first concern right now, so don't worry about sparse replies. Just get home safely!


wasn't James Purefoy the Black Prince in A Knight's Tale? Was he supposed to be a villain? Totally missed that if it he was. :P

Oops, yes you're right, he's supposed to be the good king who comes back and pardons Heath Ledger's character in the end, a la King Richard in the Robin Hood stories. Is he supposed really supposed to be the Black Prince? Imdb lists him as some guy named Colville.


It also makes me have to ask, have you seen the movie King Arthur? I found it for like 500 yen the other day and decided it was worth adding to my crappy movies collection. It didn't let me down, though it wasn't quite as abysmal as I expected...

Are you talking about the Clive Owen King Arthur? Yeah, it was pretty disappointing. I hope the Starz series doesn't turn into Zemeckis Beowulf (though I admit after watching it for my Beowulf class, I have a bit more respect for it than before).

SPOILERS!


But if the first episode is any indication, Camelot seems watchable. The Starz people seem to be going for a more realistic (though not historical) retelling. The figure of Merlin, in particular, has not yet shown any magical abilities, not even foresight. He only supports Arthur because he's seen the corruption of Uther and wants a better king for England. He sends infant Arthur to be raised with Ector because he wants Arthur to grow up without the inflated pride of a prince. But there are hints that Merlin is also very manipulative and politically savvy. Morgan, on the other hand, has already shown that she is an enchantress, that she doesn't mind sleeping around to get what she wants (the queen's throne), and that she openly opposes Arthur. It'll be interesting to see how the Starz writers continue to develop Merlin vs. Morgan.

The writers are going with a storyline which has been done in Merlin - that in the absence of Uther, Morgan forcibly takes the throne. The difference here is that it's more realistic. She forges political alliances (namely by sleeping with the most powerful warlord, Lot) to keep her in power. In one of the most shocking scenes of the first episode, she banishes her mother Igraine from the kingdom as her first queenly act. Igraine shows up later as one of the many faithful to Arthur, and there is a touching reunion scene between her and Arthur. So again, it'll be interesting to see how the siblings' relationship with their mother develops.

Both Arthur and Morgan have already been shown to be sexually active (this is Starz, after all!), though in very different ways. In Arthur's first scene, he's lying naked with a woman under a tree, and he makes an allusion to Genesis, as if figuring himself as Adam and her as Eve. But this is undercut later when Kay (his foster brother) comes charging in angrily and we learn that the girl was Kay's girlfriend (or that he fancied her). Surprisingly, Kay isn't as riled up about it as you would think (b/c apparently this isn't the first time), and shows great loyalty to Arthur when he discovers his true bloodline. But that first scene is a nice way to sow the seeds of discord between the two foster brothers. Morgan sleeps with Lot to gain political power, and that sex scene is pretty graphic. Anyways, since Arthur has already shown himself to a lady's man and Morgan a seductress, I wonder if the writers will conflate Morgause into the Morgan character and have her try to seduce Arthur. I wonder if Morgan herself will be the mother of Mordred. I'm speculating partially because imdb does not show anyone listed to play a Morgause character.

Two final points: Arthur is beginning to have some dreams about being with a mysterious blonde woman naked on a beach. Merlin, in the only magical power he's shown so far, apparently knows about these dreams, but doesn't know who the woman is. (If you've watched the trailers at all, you know this woman turns out to be Guinevere.) So apparently, Arthur - not Merlin - has some powers of foresight. Secondly, Camelot itself is presented as the dormant seat of power for "ancient kings". Merlin advises Arthur to set up court there as an alternative to Morgan's queenship (in Tintagel? I don't remember where she reigns). When they arrive at Camelot, it is a decrepit stone fortress, completely overgrown with vines. Arthur, Merlin, and those loyal to him will have to clean up the fortress to make it inhabitable. I wonder too if the Round Table will be from these "ancient kings" because Starz certainly doesn't seem to be following the traditional storyline with Guinevere. I guess we'll find out more next week.


The first part of Li chevaliers as deus epees parallels the first part of the story of Balain in the Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle. It is possible that the creator of the Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle knew Li chevaliers as deus epees and simply used part of it to construct the first part of his story of Balain...After the conquest of King Ris/Rion/Rience by Meriadeuc/Balain/Balin, the Meriaduec versions and Balain/Balin versions have nothing at all in common. The Balain/Balin version seems to be a variant of the grail adventure of Gawain in the First Continuation to Chrétien’s Perceval.

In Le chevaliers as deus epees, does Balain/Meriadeuc have a brother who helps him defeat the Rion character, as in the Malory? I made a copy of the Post-Vulgate version of B&B to read this weekend, so I can come back with more details about this. I wonder why Malory chose this particular story, amongst so many others, to elaborate on and set up so well for the subsequent Grail Quest.

I also found an article in Arthuriana about the possible Ur-story of Balin and Balan/Knight of the Two Swords. I've only read the abstract so far, and it seems pretty far-fetched, but I'll let you know what I find.


The name Nero might in origin be an anagram of Rion, that is Niro

Really? I've never heard this before. Where did you get it? And do you know where the giant is first named Rion? If I remember correctly, Geoffrey of Monmouth's giant of Mont St. Michel is unnamed, although Arthur does recall a second giant named Ritho of Mount Aravius, who collects the beards of kings on his cloak. It seems these two giants often get conflated into one character as Geoffrey is adapted, so I wonder if the name "Rion" is a corruption of Geoffrey's Ritho and, as you say, possibly a memory of the evil emperor Nero? Later, in the first part of the Vulgate cycle, Rion is the giant/tyrant oppressing Leodegrance and he actually owns Marmiadoise, the sword of Hercules! It's really fascinating how Geoffrey of Monmouth gets adapted so differently by these different authors.

Re: Cliges. Ah, so he is Greek in Parzival! I haven't yet read it, but can you explain plot-wise why there are four queens? Why is Cliges reporting this news? And is this the same Kundrie that Parzival falls in love with?

[sithkittie]

Yup, he's the Black Prince. They say it a couple of times - it's why Will wins that first tournament. What's-his-face bad-guy withdraws because they find out Colville is really Prince Edward, but Will rides against him anyway. ... not that I've seen that movie entirely too many times... :P And yes, Clive Owen King Arthur. Definitely would have been improved by the lack of trying to make it seem like historical fact... and Keira Knightly.

And thanks. Two more weeks exactly.

[Wilde woman]

Haha, obviously you've seen it more times than I have! I just barely remember him at the end of the movie; I completely missed the Black Prince thing, but probably because at the time I didn't have any idea who the Black Prince was!

I'm towards the end of the Grail section of Malory. Seriously, what is Malory's problem with Gawain? He NEVER comes off well. I remember there's one bit where Malory, ever the score keeper, lists the SIX knights who have or will defeat Gawain. It would be funny except that Gawain seems to have almost no redeeming features.

[Calidore]

I'm towards the end of the Grail section of Malory. Seriously, what is Malory's problem with Gawain? He NEVER comes off well. I remember there's one bit where Malory, ever the score keeper, lists the SIX knights who have or will defeat Gawain. It would be funny except that Gawain seems to have almost no redeeming features.

I remember that Gawain was a flawed hero in the French Vulgate, and in the Post-Vulgate he's an outright villain. The French versions were one of Malory's primary sources, IIRC, so that's probably where that portrayal came from.

Best,

Calidore

[sithkittie]

I'm hashing Knight's Tale to death, but wilde woman, did you get the part in Chretien's Lancelot that I was talking about earlier that they borrowed for the movie? When Lancelot is in the tournament in disguise and Guinevere sends her made to tell him to do his worst? I highly recommend rewatching that movie, just for giggles. I definitely got a lot more fun out of it after reading this stuff. Apparently the writers actually knew something, who'd have thought for a teen movie whose theme song is done by Queen?

Poor Gawain, Malory really doesn't represent him in a nice light at all. I was so confused reading SGGK after the bit of Malory I read, all "Huh?? Perfect Christian knight what??" He's not even a very good villain for that matter, at least for the first half. He's just mostly lame and made of fail - and that's my enlightened opinion on that. :P

[Jallan]

In Le chevaliers as deus epees, does Balain/Meriadeuc have a brother who helps him defeat the Rion character, as in the Malory? I made a copy of the Post-Vulgate version of B&B to read this weekend, so I can come back with more details about this.

No, Meriadeuc does not have a brother in the Post-Vulgate tale of Balain and Merlin does not appear either. Meriadeuc’s triumph over King Ris of Outre-Ombre is told by King Ris himself when he is brought to Arthur’s court on a litter. Ris explains that he and ten of his men were defeated in a knightly encounter by Meriadeuc who apparently has sought out King Ris just for that purpose.


I wonder why Malory chose this particular story, amongst so many others, to elaborate on and set up so well for the subsequent Grail Quest.
Because Malory’s source was the beginning of the so-called Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle from the begetting of Mordred to half-way through the story of Pelias and Archade/Ettarde. It is the author of the Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle who wrote the tale, which Malory only slightly abridges with almost no changes.

For the beginning of his tale, Malory appears to have followed a manuscript similar to Cambridge Add. 7071 which follows the Vulgate Merlin up to Arthur's victory at Bedegran and his journey to aid King Leodgan against Rion, then after a short bridging passage, jumps to the Post-Vulgate Merlin with the story of the fathering of Mordred. Fanni Bogdanow believes that this version which includes the Vulgate material is the earlier form of the Post-Vulgate text, but I find her arguments very, very bad in this case.

But Malory just follows this version of the Post-Vulgate Merlin here.

The Post-Vulgate seems to take Le chevaliers as deus epees as his beginning, jumps to the Gawain tradition I have mentioned, but makes the grail visit end in the giving of the dolorous stroke, and then jumps to unknown sources. At least that explanation would work assuming that the author knew the same texts that have survived. He may not have done.


And do you know where the giant is first named Rion? If I remember correctly, Geoffrey of Monmouth's giant of Mont St. Michel is unnamed, although Arthur does recall a second giant named Ritho of Mount Aravius, who collects the beards of kings on his cloak. It seems these two giants often get conflated into one character as Geoffrey is adapted, so I wonder if the name "Rion" is a corruption of Geoffrey's Ritho and, as you say, possibly a memory of the evil emperor Nero? Later, in the first part of the Vulgate cycle, Rion is the giant/tyrant oppressing Leodegrance and he actually owns Marmiadoise, the sword of Hercules! It's really fascinating how Geoffrey of Monmouth gets adapted so differently by these different authors.
I don’t think that these authors are necessarily adapting Geoffrey here and that Nero has anything at all to do with the Emperor Nero, other than that the author of the Post-Vulgate Merlin has invented Nero, the brother of Rion, to allow him to include both the tale that Rion was defeated by the Knight of the Two Swords and the more normal tale that Rion was defeated in battle with Arthur by having Nero fight pretending that he is Rion in order to keep up the morale of his knights. The Post-Vulgate Merlin very much pushes the idea that Nero is disguised as Rion which Malory ignores.

The form Rion first appears in Chrétien’s Perceval in surviving texts. In Thomas’ Tristan he is called l’Orguillos and a giant who is said to be his nephew is slain by Tristan.

There are references in later Welsh fragments to the same person who is called Rhitta Gawr and Rhitta Gawr is the name given him in Welsh translations of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

I suspect the story of Arthur’s battle with Rhitta/Ritho/Rion is an old tale, predating Geoffrey.


Re: Cliges. Ah, so he is Greek in Parzival! I haven't yet read it, but can you explain plot-wise why there are four queens? Why is Cliges reporting this news? And is this the same Kundrie that Parzival falls in love with?The Cundrie who is Gawain’s sister in the Parzival is barely mentioned in that poem. Perhaps Wolfram knew some other tale in which Gawain, his mother, and a young sister named Cundrie appeared and included her among the women at the castle of Wonders to allow this other tale to be in continuity with his tale. Wolfram also applies the name Cundrie to the loathly damsel, but clearly presents the two Cundries as unrelated.

Parzival does not fall in love with either Cundrie.

Clias the Greek is presumably only reporting the news because he knows it, and many of Arthur’s knights are setting out in an attempt to achieve the adventure. The passage I gave is the only mention of Clias in Wolfram. No-one seems to here recognize the names Arnive and Sangive, which is odd. Wolfram earlier tells how in Uther Pendragon’s time Arnive ran off with the enchanter Klinchsor and how young Arthur set off in quest of her but failed to find her.


I'm towards the end of the Grail section of Malory. Seriously, what is Malory's problem with Gawain? He NEVER comes off well. I remember there's one bit where Malory, ever the score keeper, lists the SIX knights who have or will defeat Gawain. It would be funny except that Gawain seems to have almost no redeeming features.
In the French Quest of the Holy Grail Gawain also has few redeeming features, being a symbol of the best of secular knighthood of which the author has a lower opinion than Malory. In the later Prose Tristan and in the Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle Gawain is made out to be even worse, although his reputation is still somewhat what it was in the verse romances, but his reputation is a sham.

The list of six knights who will defeat Gawain in a full battle also comes from his source, and is not original with Malory. The author lists the six as Lancelot, Hector, Bors, Gaheriet, Tristan, and the Morholt. Malory, for some reason, replaces Hector and Gaheriet/Gareth by Percivale and Pellias.

That Gawain was defeated by Lancelot, Hector, Bors, and Gaheriet also appears in the Prose Lancelot, although extenuating circumstances are given in respect to Gawain’s defeat by Hector and Bors. The Prose Lancelot also claims that Gawain never fully recovered from the dreadful wounds he suffered when fighting against Galehot’s army. This seems to me to be an attempt to allow Gawain fans to believe that Gawain, who is also much older than the knights who later defeat him, to have been a better knight at the height of his prowess than any of the others.

Gawain retains his status in the verse romances, even the latest of them, as a knight only equaled or arguably surpassed by the hero (or hero(s)) of the romance in which Gawain appears. But in the later prose cyclic romances, Gawain shows himself to be of little worth. And it is the later prose cyclic romances that Malory is often reproducing.

For example, in Chrétien’s account Perceval had two elder brothers, one of whom served the King of Escavalon, and these two brothers were mysteriously slain in combat on the same day. Gawain is later accused of treacherously slaying the King of Escavalon. In the post-Vulgate romances, two of Perceval's elder brothers (Drian and Lamorat [whom Malory calls Durnore and Lamorak]) are slain by Gawain in the forest of Lacen on the same day but it is kept secret by whom they were slain. The tradition behind the post-Vulgate cycle appears to be in part a recombination and deconstruction of earlier Gawain material.

[sithkittie]

Warning: completely unrelated to Arthur or any of his knights, stories, authors, or history whatsoever.

This topic has been dead for a month! Wah! I was hoping for some new tidbit or something to flail over since I finally got the chance to check the site. Ah well.

Just so this isn't a totally useless post, I started reading that book about Robin Hood that you recommended, Wilde Woman... and I'm at a complete loss. I don't know any of the old stories, only the 20th century renditions of them. I think a visit to the library is in order. And yeah...that wasn't really on topic.

I can reiterate my surprise at SGGK's pious non-fail Gawain to follow the rhetorical question of why Mallory hates him so much. Beginnings of the anti-hero maybe? I still haven't read to the end, but is there anything remotely redeeming about him?

And that's the extent of my addition. Hopefully it sparks something? Does something aside from bump the thread?

[Jallan]

Just so this isn't a totally useless post, I started reading that book about Robin Hood that you recommended, Wilde Woman... and I'm at a complete loss. I don't know any of the old stories, only the 20th century renditions of them.

All that survives of whatever medieval stories were told of Robin Hood are a small number of later medieval and early modern ballads. All of them are included in Francis J. Child’s famous ballad collection as ballads 117 to 154. See http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ . In 1598 Anthony Munday wrote his plays The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntington and The Death of Robert Earl of Huntington, which are the first surviving texts to make Robin Hood one of the nobility, rather than a yeoman, and the first surviving texts to bring King Richard and Prince John into the story. These plays are included in http://www.archive.org/details/fiveoldplaysform00colluoft along with an Arthurian play.


I can reiterate my surprise at SGGK's pious non-fail Gawain to follow the rhetorical question of why Mallory hates him so much. Beginnings of the anti-hero maybe? I still haven't read to the end, but is there anything remotely redeeming about him?

All medieval Arthurian verse romances (except for non-French romances based on the prose cyclic romances) present Gawain as Arthur’s best knight or his best knight except for the hero of the romance who is sometimes indicated to be better. The Prose Lancelot follows the same pattern, save that Lancelot’s half-brother Hector of the Fens and Lancelot’s cousin Bohort (Bors) are also made out to be approximately equal to Gawain, as may be Perceval who fights Lancelot to a standstill, but is never shown to battle Gawain. See http://books.google.ca/books?id=cTY44q6n0MgC&lpg=PA453&ots=WzNOcCGm6a&dq=hargadabran&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=hargadabran&f=false , http://books.google.ca/books?id=aQSkzRstpJYC&lpg=PP1&dq=intitle%3Alancelot&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false , and http://books.google.ca/books?id=M2fUvn72bLgC&lpg=PP1&dq=intitle%3Alancelot&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false for excerpts from the Prose Lancelot and see http://www.timelessmyths.com/arthurian/lancelot.html for a summary of it.

In its sequel, The Quest of the Holy Grail, Galahad is introduced as a knight even superior to Lancelot and Gawain first, in surviving texts, appears as an impious failure. The author of this text blames Gawain harshly, without indicating exactly what Gawain has done. Gawain’s rather free attitude to sexual relationships with damsels is likely to be what is largely meant. And Gawain does not respect the teachings of the Church sufficiently. In the next sequel, the Death of Arthur, Gawain is made into an enemy of Lancelot, but here not without reason.

In the Prose Tristan Gawain appears as a knight with a great reputation who in reality does not live up to it. More than once one of his friends discovers Gawain mistreating a damsel and is shocked by it, but then keeps quiet about it, as the friend respects Gawain too much to make it an open matter. Gawain has killed King Pellinor, but kept it mostly secret, and later kills King Pellinor’s sons Driant and Lamorat, but also keeps this mostly secret.

The Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle also makes Gawain to be the slayer of Pellinor and his two sons, and introduces him as one who, in anger, slew a maiden on his first quest and one who betrays his promise to the knight Pelias and lies with Pelias’ lady love Arcade. These tales also appear in Malory with slight differences in the names. Gawain also has Perceval approach him during the grail quest, saying that some have told him that Gawain was responsible for the deaths of his father and two brothers. Gawain, fearing Perceval’s prowess, dishonestly denies it. Among the knights slain by Gawain in the grail quest are Palamedes, Tristan’s former rival, and even Gawain’s murderous brother Agravain is shocked by this. In the last section of this work Gawain admits to “hating” Lancelot and his kin, but advises against Agravain’s attempt to entrap Lancelot and Guenevere only because this would probably bring on a civil war in Logres. Agravain should instead wait until the time is right to seek vengeance.

There is nothing of an anti-hero in these tales. Gawain is an envious, lustful cad who gets away with what he does because he is Arthur’s loved nephew and because most of his misdeeds are not openly known. To be fair, in these romances Lancelot and Tristan are not much better. Lamerot (Malory’s Lamerok) is also a rapist. I wonder if in part, the writers of these tales were relatively unencumbered by much morality themselves, writing in days when in reality many knights had slain other knights dishonorably, raped women, and fallen far beneath the moral code that appears in most Arthurian verse romances. That Gaheriet(Gareth), kills his own mother when he finds her in bed with Lamerot, is treated as just an unlucky deed of Gaheriet, who is otherwise a good knight. Things just happen. Gawain, Argravain, and Mordred later attack Gaheriet to seek vengeance for their mother’s death but Lamerot comes to Gaheriet’s aid, declaring that the death of such a noble knight as Gaheriet is too much to ask for the death of any woman. So much for chivalry as it appears in some more modern writings. Arthur would have removed Gaheriet from the Round Table for his misdeed, but finds he can’t, because Gaheriet’s name still appears on the Round Table seat. It seems God supports Gaheriet.

Malory seems to still believe in his “high order of knighthood” and seems to know English poems of Gawain which lead him to keep Gawain to something near his reputation in the verse romances, when Malory is not copying exactly from the Post-Vulgate romances. Malory also imagines that Gawain’s slaying of King Pellinor was not done in secret, that it was Mordred who actually slew Lamorak/Lamorat (although Gawain later admits to it), and does not include any slaying of Durnore/Driant. Malory does not know that Gawain slew Palamedes in the grail quest and indicates Palamedes is still alive after the quest. In short, Malory’s Gawain, although a bad sort, is not quite as bad as the Gawain of the Prose Tristan and the Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle.

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, it is a married woman who attempts to seduce Gawain. In no romance is Gawain ever shown to have any romantic entanglement with a married woman, even at his worst in the late prose cyclic romances. The author of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in making the damsel out to be the wife of Gawain’s host, not his daughter, avoids having to deal with Gawain’s reputation in respect to hosts’ daughters. Chrétien de Troyes, in his Peceval, indicates that Gawain and the daughter of the King of Escavalon would likely have lain together, although her brother is Gawain’s host, if it had not come out that Gawain had slain their father.

Kay was himself at one time Arthur's chief warrior. He so appears in the early Welsh tale Culhwch and Olwen and is superior to all of Arthur’s knights save for Gawain and Meriadoc in the early Latin tale of Meriadoc, Prince of Cambria. In almost all later romances Kay is somewhat of a joke. One can guess why his reputation fell so low, but it would be only a guess. Similarly, in the prose cyclic romances, Gawain, in his turn has fallen. One can really only guess why this is so. The short version of the Prose Tristan adapts the account of Perceval’s battles with Sagremor and Kay from Chrétien de Troyes’ Perceval, but tells the first battle with Sagremor substituted by Kay and then the second battle with Kay substituted by Gawain, and ignores Chrétien’s account of Gawain’s peaceful meeting with Perceval. In the Prose Tristan account, Perceval then rides off. Gawain, after being healed of his wound, learns that it is Perceval who had so wounded him, and sets off with his brothers Agravain and Mordred to find Perceval and kill him, but they are unable to find Perceval. In short, Gawain to some degree fills the position that Kay usually fills. In the Perlesvaus Kay murders Arthur’s son Lohot and a hermit sends Lohot’s head to Arthur’s court. In the late prose Arthurian romances, Gawain kills Lamorat and Lamorat’s head is then sent to Arthur’s court.

[Wilde woman]

Hiya, I'm glad you revived this thread, sithkittie, and I promise to post soon, but I'm currently swamped with work. It's the last week of the semester for me, so that means frantic frantic writing to get all my seminar papers done.

I've been MIA here for the past month because my Arthur class had moved onto Robin Hood. (Let me know if you got the chance to go to library and find out any more on him.) We only ended up reading 4 of the earlier romances/ballads, but RH makes a really interesting comparison to Arthur.

I'll be honest; I've moved a lot of my Arthur discussion to imdb, to discuss the STARZ show, Camelot. It's a really mixed bag, but I've found a couple of Arthurian enthusiasts there and we've had some nice conversations. Most of the people at imdb are (predictably) there just to bash the show or say how much they lust after or hate this or that character. But the show is interesting in that it depicts possibly the least sympathetic Arthur ever (though I can't decide if that's deliberate on the writers' part or simply a function of bad acting). If you've got time, you may want to check out the show.

Anyways, I do have lots more to say about Arthur; in fact I just finished my Malory paper a couple hours ago. I've been analyzing the tale of Balin to death. I have to say though, it's turned out to be one of my favorites. I'm finding I really like the tragic Arthurian stories...it makes me wonder if I'm in the wrong field. I'm most familiar with medieval romances, but they almost inevitably end "happily" but I find them less compelling than tragedies like Balin's tale. (And yes I know the genre of the Balin tale is debated, but I read it and consider it a tragedy.)

More thoughts on Gawain later. Perhaps this weekend!