Female knight?
Phorbus
What about in the legend of Charlemagne?
Martypie
>
>What about in the legend of Charlemagne?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Heather Rose Jones
>
> Were there any female knight in the Arthurian legend?
>
> What about in the legend of Charlemagne?
I wish I had the time to answer this more fully -- there are occasional
examples on some of the romances of women as knights, although the ones
that I can think of off the top of my head are disguised as men at the
time. (Examples of this motif include the romance of "Silence", which
has an Arthurian setting.) Somewhere I've got a few pages of extensive
notes on a similar topic, but I can't lay hands on them at the moment.
If you look at scholarly work on the general intersection between
medieval romance and women's studies, you'll find a fair amount of information.
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Cherith Baldry
>Were there any female knight in the Arthurian legend?
Phyllis Ann Karr in her _Arthurian Companion_ has an entry on this, as on so
much more.
Best regards,
Cherith
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:20010619163537...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >Were there any female knight in the Arthurian legend?
> >
> >What about in the legend of Charlemagne?
> >
> >
> >
>
>How about Joan Of Arc? She was a different era, but she was a knight!
No she wasn't - not everyone who wore armour was a knight, you know.
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:3B2F4788...@hotmail.com...
> Were there any female knight in the Arthurian legend?
>
> What about in the legend of Charlemagne?
No in both cases.
David Cole
the order of the Hatchet (orden de la Hacha) in Catalonia. It was founded in
1149 by Raymond Berenger, count of Barcelona, to honor the women who fought
for the defense of the town of Tortosa against a Moor attack. The dames
admitted to the order received many privileges, including exemption from all
taxes, and took precedence over men in public assemblies. I presume the
order died out with the original members.
Dave.
Jeni
Strictly fiction, but The Angel and the Sword by Cecelia Holland(?) was
a good novel about a girl who disguises as a man and, iirc, ends up
getting knighted. (been a while since I read it).
Jeni.
Cherith Baldry
>Strictly fiction, but The Angel and the Sword by Cecelia Holland(?) was
>a good novel about a girl who disguises as a man and, iirc, ends up
>getting knighted. (been a while since I read it).
I reviewed this for the UK journal _Vector_, and I'd add my recommendation.
It's particularly good on the psychological consequences to the girl because of
her male disguise.
Best regards,
Cherith
John Greenall
"Cherith Baldry"
> It's particularly good on the psychological consequences to the girl
because of
> her male disguise.
This sounds like she's a lesbian or something ;-)
John.
Nully
interesting.
In my travels on the web, I've found this website which you might find
informative for this topic.
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/womenvik.html
I can't vouch for it's accuracy, but it appears to have been
thoughtfully composed, and gives references.
Nully
Wendola
Knight and cousin to Charlemagne. In fact she is quite formidable.
Wendola
Scathatch, Aoife and Scathatch's daughter Uathatch(sp)
Wendola
female warrior/knights
I am sure I have not begun to scratch the surfice but it is a
beginning
Literary Female Knights/Warriors
ARTHURIAN
Britomart - Female Knight in Edmund Spenser's "Faerie Queen"
Dindraine - Perceval's sister (Not technically a knight but does quest
for the Grail)
Amazons - Female Warriors Appearing in Several Arthurian Works
There are aso many other questing ladies who are not necessarily
knights and do not usually participate in feats of arms
ULSTER CYCLE
Maeve - warrior queen nemesis to Cuchulain
Scathatch - The foremost combat instructor in the known world
Aoife - Warrior Queen adversary to Scathatch
Uacthach - warrior daughter of Scathatch
Ness - Warrior Queen mother to Conchubar, Grandmother to Cuchulain
LEDENDS OF CHARLEMAGNE
Brademante - Paladin and Niece of Charlemagne
Maphisa - Paladin for Agramant's saracen army
Historical female Knights/Warriors
Boudicca - Celtic Warrior Queen who paved a bloody path through Euroe
to avenge her daughters' rape and murder by roman soldiers
Eleanor of Aquitaine - Queen of aquitaine, France and later England,
Went on Crusade leading the Armies of Aquitaine with ehr then husband
Louis VII (though she was probably never within miles of actual
battle)but later went on to command the armies of her son John I of
England
Joan of Arc - Though I can find no evidence that She was ever
knighted, her family was granted a cote of arms and nobility (to be
passed down through the both the male and female lines) by Charles VII
- http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/jeannedarc.htm
SITES OF INTEREST
Orders of Knighthood
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/wom-kn.htm
http://www.amtgard.com/archive/03.97/0311.html
Women as Warriors in History
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html
Women Warriors
http://www.gendergap.com/military/Warriors-1.htm
Graham Nowland
> Joan of Arc - Though I can find no evidence that She was ever
> knighted, her family was granted a cote of arms and nobility (to be
> passed down through the both the male and female lines) by Charles VII
Interesting point. In the bigger picture knighthood really depends on
being a mounted warrior more than anything else. Without a horse, the word
in any language has not meaning.
By Joan's time the system of knighthood had become a ritualised formality
based on family, fashion and social connections. With changing methods in
warfare many official male so called knights weren't even soldiers.
Joan, the daughter of well off peasants, conforms better to the general
concept of "knight" than they did.
In addition from what I can discover, she underwent a unique investiture.
This included exorcism followed by a close examination and investigation.
After passing these tests of her worthiness she was authorised to serve
the crown and lead a royal army.
She was given a "household" consisting of her two brothers, a chaplain, a
squire, two men at arms, two pages and two heralds.
I am especially impressed that you were able to find that she had a
specific coat of arms. My sources just say she fought under her own
banner.
Whether she was actually "dubbed," (I suspect she must have been), she led
the key battle - and as a mounted warrior. That certainly conforms to the
original idea of a knight in most of history. It also conforms to the main
modern meaning, according to my dictionary.
In fiction Malory explores the idea that the inner quality of knightood is
not dependent on breeding, social position or overt masculinity in the
story of Beaumains.
Here the unknown Beaumains was put in the kitchen to do an unmanly job.
Sir Kay, whose churlish behaviour is contrasted with that of Beaumains,
gave him his effeminate and contemptuous nickname, which means
"fairhands".
But Beaumains won his knighthood by deeds.
After making this point, Malory or rather his earlier French source,
couldn't allow the idea that a non-aristocrat could actually became an
official knight, even in a story. So he reveals that Beaumains was really
the artistocrat, Gareth, all along - the brother of Gawain - in disguise.
It makes the Beaumains story a bit silly and unbelievable though I expect
unquestioning Malory admirers will rush to his defence.
I guess the twist in the Beaumain's story went down extremely well in the
French royal courts of the 13th century where the story was probably first
told.
Nevertheless despite the silly twist, Malory made an underlying chivalric
moral about the inner nobility required of a true knight . He also makes
the point about it not necessarily being connected with overt masculinity.
Malory could just conceivably have had thoughts about Joan in this kind of
context. He was a young knight or would be knight when she was executed by
the English in 1431. Malory is known to have fought as a knight against
the French at Calais in 1436.
Regards
Graham
B GOOGLE
Went on Crusade leading the Armies of Aquitaine with ehr then husband
Louis VII (though she was probably never within miles of actual
battle)but later went on to command the armies of her son John I of
England >>
And much, much later went on Crusade again with her son, Richard I of England.
B
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:489fcfee.01062...@posting.google.com...
> Historical female Knights/Warriors
>
> Boudicca - Celtic Warrior Queen who paved a bloody path through
Euroe
> to avenge her daughters' rape and murder by roman soldiers
Boudicca never reached mainland Europe, her daughters were never
murdered, and it was Roman slaves, not Roman soldiers.
Wendola
I stand corrected.
You can visit
http://www.athenapub.com/tacitus1.htm
for a description of Boudicca by Tacitus, a roman historian
Ian Weir
>
> After making this point, Malory or rather his earlier French source,
> couldn't allow the idea that a non-aristocrat could actually became an
> official knight, even in a story. So he reveals that Beaumains was really
> the artistocrat, Gareth, all along - the brother of Gawain - in disguise.
>
> It makes the Beaumains story a bit silly and unbelievable though I expect
> unquestioning Malory admirers will rush to his defence.
>
So, um, by contrast the Grail Quest is documentary realism?
The revelation that the kitchen-boy (or scullery-maid, or
what-have-you) is a time-honored romance motif -- like pretty much all
of the motifs running through the "Morte" (which is, after all, a
romance!).
Also, to get pedantic, I'm not sure it's quite the case to say that
Malory can't accept the notion that a non-aristocrat could become a
knight. Rather, it's the basic assumption that noble deeds are (by
definition) the outward manifestation of noble blood.
(To get REALLY pedantic, the principle also operates in reverse. In
his "Tristram" book, Malory renders "coward" as "cow-herd" --
following a contemporary belief that the word literally derived from
"herder of cows" rather than from the actual French root!)
Best
Ian
Cherith Baldry
>In fiction Malory explores the idea that the inner quality of knightood is
>not dependent on breeding, social position or overt masculinity in the
>story of Beaumains.
I doubt it. Malory would have assumed noble birth to be a prerequisite for
noble deeds - as you point out later, Gareth is not a peasant, but the youngest
son of the King of Orkney. Compare the story of Tor, who is the son of a
peasant woman and King Pellinore, and stands out from his half brothers as
clearly coming from noble stock.
>Here the unknown Beaumains was put in the kitchen to do an unmanly job.
There was nothing unmanly about Gareth's work in the kitchens. In the Middle
Ages, most kitchen workers were male.
>Sir Kay, whose churlish behaviour is contrasted with that of Beaumains,
>gave him his effeminate and contemptuous nickname, which means
>"fairhands".
The nickname is not effeminate. It denotes the hands of someone unused to
manual work. Everyone in Camelot - with the possible exception of Kay -
realised from the beginning that Gareth was not a peasant, even if they didn't
know who he really was. Arthur himself says, at their first meeting, 'thou art
com of men of worshyp'. The reason why everyone thought it was dreadful for Kay
to put Gareth in the kitchens is that it was a disparagement of his noble birth
- noblemen by definition do not work.
Later in the story Lynette is hostile to Gareth because _she_ believes him to
be no more than a kitchen boy, until she is convinced by his deeds.
>After making this point, Malory or rather his earlier French source,
To the best of my knowledge there is no earlier source for Gareth's story as
told in Malory.
>I guess the twist in the Beaumain's story
It's not a twist as told in Malory. At an early stage he tells his readers that
the unknown youth is kin to Sir Gawain.
>Nevertheless despite the silly twist, Malory made an underlying chivalric
>moral about the inner nobility required of a true knight .
No argument here.
Best regards,
Cherith
Graham Nowland
> I'm not sure it's quite the case to say that
> Malory can't accept the notion that a non-aristocrat could become a
> knight. Rather, it's the basic assumption that noble deeds are (by
> definition) the outward manifestation of noble blood.
>
Ian
Yes I think that may have been one of the points Malory was making, but
it seems a bit of a cop
out.
Beaumains achieves recognition as a knight initally for his deeds, which
Malory seems to support.
In theory at least Malory appeards to be indicating that nobility, or
more accurately chivalric
nobility, innately has nothing to do with birth.
As a lowly kitchen hand he wins the right to knighthood. But in essence
this consists of little
more than grabing his arms in a fight then using them to kill other
knights. In that sense he is a
bit like versions of Perseval, the eventual grail winner in the eraly
versions.
Later in Malory's story Beumains exhibits strong similarities to his
brother Gawain, as a sort of
sun god who battles with a monolithic regenerating knight.
Beaumains/Gareth is also wounded in a way that reminds of the Fisher
King, and is attended by the
Linet/Liones sisters who have an otherwordly enchantress like role.
So Gareth/Beaumains is hardly a simple character exemplifying elements
of chivalric nobility alone.
However witnesses to Beaumains rise judge him on his rise as a mounted
warrior. They then assume
from this that he must be noble by blood and so it proves to be.
It is a medieval romantic cliche. Malory, or rather his sources,
couldn't write anything else, no
matter what they might think privately. This is because the Arthurian
romances were written to
please a French aristocracy which was a violently aggressive and self
pretective elite.
There was no chance a real commoner could cross into the aristocratic
ranks by deeds. A real
commoner grabbing a knight's horse and arms and killing official knights
would have been executed
as an outlaw, not praised as noble.
In fact to get any degree of real freedom, of movement for example, all
a commoner could do then
was become an outlaw. This is reflected in the anti-authoritorian Robin
Hood cycle of legends,
which interestingly sprung up simultaneously with the romantic Arthurian
phase.
Regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
> Gareth is not a peasant, but the youngest
> son of the King of Orkney.
You must have misread my post. I never said Beaumans was a peasant,
merely that he
was unknown. I think you have confused this with a reference earlier in
the post.
There I said Joan of Arc was the daughter of peasants.
I was aware of course he was the son of King Lot and did actually state
that Gareth
was the brother of Gawaine. That when discussing Malory, is almost like
say8ing he
was son of King Lot, so often are the various Orkney brothers linked
with the
father.
> There was nothing unmanly about Gareth's work in the kitchens. In the Middle
> Ages, most kitchen workers were male.
Point taken.
At another level though I was groping towards the sense that a lower
order male of
this kind was hardly more than a slave. The male gender thing does
encompass a
sense of "being your own man".
Referring to Beaumains you said
> The nickname is not effeminate. It denotes the hands of someone unused to
> manual work.
It's a question of interpretation, although I admit I was being a little
bit
provocative
Does it say in the text that Beaumain's hands were unused to manual
work. I can
only find that he was "the largest and fairest handed man in the world"
and it is
this Kay picks up on.
Kay's intention as Malory says was to scorn and mock him. I sense that
"fairhands"
would be much more cutting if it contained a suggestion of effeminancy.
The
sharptongued Kay would hardly miss the point. Wasn't Isolde of the White
Hands also
known in some versions as Isolde of the Fair Hands?
Beaumains in the opening is presented as a kind of big soft glamour
puss. Apart
from his fair visage his bearing is described: "as though he might not
go nor bear
himself, but if he leaned upon their shoulders".
A very clinging figure he cut then, despite his size.
> Everyone in Camelot - with the possible exception of Kay -
> realised from the beginning that Gareth was not a peasant,
Not true unfortunately although I think you are again misplacing the
word peasant..
In Chapter 35 of that book, Gawaine tells his mother, angry at the way
Beaumains/Gareth had been treated, "O dear mother...I knew him not".
A few sentences on King Arthur corroborates Gawaine's claim. "Fair
sister, ...you
shall right well wit I knew him not nor more so did Sir Gawains nor his
brethren".
The king then recalls Beauman's first appearance at court and the figure
he cut.
"And thereby we deemed, many of us, that he was not come of a noble
house". etc
etc.
There are lots of other places where it is clear that few knew Beaumains
true
identity. That was the whole point. How else could Malory demonstrate it
was not
breeding or connections that made a true knight, but something carried
inwardly,
which translated into deeds.
Where I quibble with Malory is that it was a copout because Beaumains
was a prince
all along. The story would have been so much more noble if he was in
fact a
commoner with the soul of a knight.
I accept this would not have been possible at the time. The aristocratic
twist in
the story is designed to please medieval aristocrats.
> To the best of my knowledge there is no earlier source for Gareth's story as
> told in Malory.
I think you may find it embedded somewhere in the vulgate cycle, the
vast Lancelot
perhaps.
I admit this is an assumption of mine. I am influenced by the scholarly
view that
Malory's stories were largely re-worked versions of the Vulgate cycle
and to a
lesser extent some other books. According to this view he translated,
condensed,
sythesised and heightened them but added little new.
>From what I have read so far this view is holding up, but I am hardly an expert.
Perhaps the Beaumains story is a true Malory invention. I would be
interested if
you somehow could prove it was beyond simply saying it is. In fact it
would be
intersting to know which stories Malory actually invented himself.
I accept this may not be easy call if Malory was also blending older
stories.
I will try and dig out the reference which makes me think Malory's
genius lie in
synthesising, not in creative imagination.
Regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
> To the best of my knowledge there is no earlier source for Gareth's story as
> told in Malory.
As promised here is my authority for being able to safely assume that the Malory's
book of Gareth was derived from French source(s).
R S Loomis was one of the greatest scholars of medieval literature. He edited for
Oxford University Press that great classic of literary criticism, Arthurian
Literature in The Middle Ages.
His own article there on Malory states quite explicitly: "His 'books' and 'tales'
are all adaptations from the French".
Virtually the same thing had of course already been said in 1485 by the printer,
William Caxton, as a quick read of the original preface will confirm.
Loomis is basing his insight not on Caxon's remark, however, but on years of study
of both the Caxton edition and the earlier Winchster version.
As a leading scholar he was in a position to compare Malory with those French
sources which have survived. He could make deductions about those which haven't by
studying the various often corrupt versions left by other adaptors.
There is a summary of Malory's huge range of sources with examples cited where
Malory did little more than directly translate.
Where the original source is lost Loomis is able to deduce from more corrupt copies
than Malory's that Malory had access to their source.
"His Tale of the Sangkreal is a case in point, based as it is upon a text more
closely related than any of the extant manuscaripts to the lost original version of
the French "Queste del Saint Graal."
Loomis goes on; "He is the only author to have preserved what must originally have
been a French prose romance of Gaheret." "Another text which has not survived
except in Malory is the last of the three late fragments which constitute 'his
Noble tale of Sir Launcelot du Lake'" and he hints at how he has arrived at this
conclusion.
Gareth is among those books for which the source has not yet come to light. It is
clear from Loomis's comments that he thought there must have been such a source. He
can also tell that Gareth was written following his writing of the mysterious
Lancelot "fragment" the source of which is also unknown.
Having said all that and much more, Loomis embarks on a quest for the "pure
Malory".
"A careful comparison of his text with the French makes it possible to discover a
number of passages creditable to his own invention. But if the 'pure Malory' were
limited to such passages it would be difficult to say anything positive about the
art of his writing."
He then analyses these passages. They consists of soliloquies on love and marriage
and "elaborate comments everywhere on the art of chivalry..."
He says that by examining Malory's additions (and they obviously do not include
anything as major as the Gareth story,) conclusions can be drawn about where
Malory's "real orginality" lies.
It is encapsulated in one sentence.
"The pure Malory is the prose writer whose language has given life to a dying
tradition".
He closes the article extolling Malorys triumph as a stylist who wove the material
from his sources into a fresh fabric. "What makes his prose live is his way of
subordinating his verbal material to a rhythm all his own, his instinctive
discovery of new stylistic pattern."
As a professional writer and reviewer I find this Loomis article a stunning
example of what a great literary critic, clearly fully in command of his subject,
can achieve.
Regards
Graham
Ian Weir
>
> R S Loomis was one of the greatest scholars of medieval literature. He edited for
> Oxford University Press that great classic of literary criticism, Arthurian
> Literature in The Middle Ages.
>
> His own article there on Malory states quite explicitly: "His 'books' and 'tales'
> are all adaptations from the French".
Not true, actually. Book II of the Morte (I'm using Vinaver's
subdivisions) -- Arthur's European campaign, the war with Lucius, etc.
-- is based on the 14th Century English Alliterative Morte D'Arthur.
And later on Malory draws heavily on the English Stanzaic Morte.
>
> Gareth is among those books for which the source has not yet come to light. It is
> clear from Loomis's comments that he thought there must have been such a source.
Agreed. Like most Medieval writers -- Chaucer foremost among them --
Malory put no premium on inventing original material. It would have
been entirely out of character for him to invent a new story from
whole-cloth, so it seems almost certain that his "Gareth" book is
based on a lost original.
>
> He closes the article extolling Malorys triumph as a stylist who wove the material
> from his sources into a fresh fabric. "What makes his prose live is his way of
> subordinating his verbal material to a rhythm all his own, his instinctive
> discovery of new stylistic pattern."
It's fascinating to watch Malory's prose style -- and his command of
the material itself -- grow and evolve over the course of the Morte.
In the earlier books, he's tentative and often awkward -- his attempt
to grapple with the Alliterative Morte, for instance, results in a
rather peculiar, lumbering alliterative prose. There's also the sense
(the long "Tristram" book, Vinaver's Book V, is a great example) that
he's trotting along after the story material, but never quite catching
up. That starts to change in the "Grail" book. And then in Vinaver's
last two books -- "Lancelot and Guinevere," and the death of Arthur --
Malory really comes into his own. The prose style is powerful and
assured, and he's in total command of the material. The result is
that these final books cohere as something very close to capital-T
tragedy -- something that doesn't otherwise exist in Medieval
literature.
Regards
Ian
Cherith Baldry
>> To the best of my knowledge there is no earlier source for Gareth's story
>as
>> told in Malory.
>
>As promised here is my authority for being able to safely assume that the
>Malory's
>book of Gareth was derived from French source(s).
>
>R S Loomis was one of the greatest scholars of medieval literature. He edited
>for
>Oxford University Press that great classic of literary criticism, Arthurian
>Literature in The Middle Ages.
>
>His own article there on Malory states quite explicitly: "His 'books' and
>'tales'
>are all adaptations from the French".
Apologies: I should have said no earlier *extant* source. However, as Ian
points out, Loomis is here ignoring the English origin of some of the work. I
have great respect for his work, but he's not infallible.
To make a general point, the fact that the Middle Ages set no great store by
originality shouldn't lead us to believe that mediaeval writers were never
original. There are several points at which elements can be traced no further
back: Chretien was the first to include Lancelot; Robert de Boron first told
the story of the sword in the stone; Malory was the first to tell the story of
Gareth in the kitchens. While there may be lost sources for all of these,
someone, at some point, had to make something up.
Best regards,
Cherith
Graham Nowland
>
> Not true, actually. Book II of the Morte (I'm using Vinaver's
> subdivisions) -- Arthur's European campaign, the war with Lucius, etc.
> -- is based on the 14th Century English Alliterative Morte D'Arthur.
Ian
See my post to Cherith about this where I have extending my quote to do full justice to Loomis'
views.
I haven't read the Alliterative Morte Darthur yet. I understand it is a powerful adaptation from
the French Brut written by Wace, which I have read.
Arthur's European campaign though ultimately derives from Geoffrey through Wace to the Alliterative
MA, and thence to Malory.
The fact that no scholar tries to claim Malory derived the European material directly from
Geoffrey, indicates the textual and linguistic indications in Malory's work must be very well
understood.
Just as a matter of interest where do you think Malory drew his Tintagel/Merlin/Uther/Igraine
section from precisely? This is something that has puzzled me for some time. Couldn't he have read
Geoffrey's Latin and basically got it from there? Or was he only bi-lingual (English-French)?
Incidentally I liked very your closing comments on the tragic power of Malory's prose style. Very
inspirational. Loomis would have approved.
Regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
Cherith Baldry wrote:
> Loomis is here ignoring the English origin of some of the work. I
> have great respect for his work, but he's not infallible.
Actually if you were more familiar with Loomis' views your response would be less
rash.
Loomis certainly wasn't ignoring the English origin of some of the work and placed
it in a context favoured by Malory himself .
I was originally trying to avoid quoting great wodges of Loomis' text. After all I
was only defending the obvious, that it is safe to assume the Gareth story was
derived from a French source.
Loomis's comment is in a multilayered context.
He is arguing the method of "retrogression towards the source". At the same time
he is commenting on an eminent literary critic who made a metaphorical comparison
of Malory's work with Wells Cathedral. Furthermore he is revealing much about how
he believes Malory himself saw the work.
Loomis first quotes the critic:
"At Wells we see something on which many generations have laboured, which no man
foresaw or intended as it now is, and it occupies a position half-way between the
works of art and those of nature... Here is a Middle English crypt, there an
Anglo-Norman chapel, a late French bit, and bits that are almost pure Malory.'
Loomis pursues his point by extending the metaphor.
"The Middle English crypt - the alliterative Morte Arthure - is the only part of
the structure which, apart from stylistic simplification, has undergone no change
at Malory's hands: it belongs to the English epic tradition and it is not a
'book' or 'tale', according to Malory's terminology, but a 'romance'.
"His 'books' and 'tales' are all adaptations from the French, and if there ever
was an 'Anglo Norman' chapel, it has been subsumed in later French accretions.
Sometimes the sources of these accretions are extant; some may yet come to light.
And wherever Malory happens to tell a story which is otherwise unknown, but for
which he is clearly not responsible " retrogession towards the source" becomes a
legitimate method".
He then moves through a passage, makes acute references to various Malory sources,
some of which I have already qutoed. Embedded in this section is a piece of high
Medieval French from the 13th century prose Lancelot. This he links with the
Gareth story. He appears to be suggesting, althought it is al ittle unclear, that
the prose Lancelot author was aware of an earlier form of the Gareth/Beaumains
story than Malory's.
There is more about Malory's sources and then Loomis goes on to assert that the
Emperor Lucius story is drawn not from the unique surviving copy of the
alliterative Morte Arthur, but from an earlier version of the poem. Since Loomis
was writing in the 1950s, this earlier version may have since come to light.
Loomis is quite certain of something about Malory, and he returns to the Wells
Cathedral metaphor.
"The bulk of his work, however, consists of 'late French bits' for which reliable
versions of his sources are available. He then isolates the passages that are
'pure Malory" and puts them in perspective. In the process he creates an almost
tangible shadow of Malry the man and writer, which to me at least, chimes in with
what is known.
Although I was only falling back on Loomis as an authority, because I am no
scholar. I am quite happy for him to be proved wrong, but it has to be more than
simple assertion..
> To make a general point, the fact that the Middle Ages set no great store by
> originality shouldn't lead us to believe that mediaeval writers were never
> original.
I never suggested this. I feel one needs to discriminat about different types of
originality in medieval literature. Malory was an innovator of form and style, not
of content.
If a story appeared in Chretienne's work, for example, it would be dangerous to
automatically
assume he had derived it from an earlier source, as Malory invariably did. This is
because, on the evidence available, Chretinne seems to have been far more likely
than Malory to turn an idea or a primitive theme he had come across into a major
new creative fiction.
Your contention that the Middle Ages set no great store on originality could
trigger an interesting discussion. Why don't you demonstrate that Chretienne de
Troyes, Wolfram von Eschenbach, or Gottfried von Strassborg, for example, set no
great store on their work being seen as original?
Regards
Graham
Ian Weir
>
> I haven't read the Alliterative Morte Darthur yet. I understand it is a powerful adaptation from
> the French Brut written by Wace, which I have read.
Hi, Graham--
Yes, it's tremendous. (It's also a great example of the Medieval
"Tragedy of Fortune" -- the hero is brought down not by
hamartia/mistakes/flaws, but by the simple fact that Fortune won't let
you stay on top for long -- and thus makes a really interesting
contrast to Malory.)
>
>
> Just as a matter of interest where do you think Malory drew his Tintagel/Merlin/Uther/Igraine
> section from precisely? This is something that has puzzled me for some time. Couldn't he have read
> Geoffrey's Latin and basically got it from there? Or was he only bi-lingual (English-French)?
As far as I know, there's no indication that Malory read Latin. And I
must confess that I'm not sure where precisely the
Tintagel/Merlin/Uther/Igraine section comes from. I'm also up at the
summer cottage -- life is tough -- and don't have my books. I'll
check things out when I'm back in a week or so, and try to come up
with something intelligent to say (always a struggle...)
>
Best
Ian
Wendola
I have no sources from me but if I recall correctly didn't the
uther/igraine episode appear in the vulgate cycle? and would that be a
likely soucre (will have to read around a bit tonight)
Graham Nowland
Wendola wrote:
> I have no sources from me but if I recall correctly didn't the
> uther/igraine episode appear in the vulgate cycle? and would that be a
> likely soucre (will have to read around a bit tonight)
Yes you are probably right, there's supposed to be a rendering of de Boron's Merlin there in prose, which
contains the segment.
I suppose my question springs from the alliterive Morte Darthur (AMD) being an adapataion of Wace. The latter
also contains the segment and I am assuming the AMD carries it across. If this is right then Malory had at
least two options.
If the scholars chooses the Vulgate as Malorys' source for the segment, then it must be pretty obvious from
things like sentence construction, imagry and precise story nuances.
Anyone know where I can find a book which contains good bits of Malory compared line by line to the sources,
with analysis?
Regards
Graham
Ian Weir
>
> Anyone know where I can find a book which contains good bits of Malory compared line by line to the sources,
> with analysis?
The best such source I'm aware of is the three-volume edition of
Vinaver's "Works of Malory." The one-volume version has a bit of
textual apparatus, but it's limited.
Best
Ian
Graham Nowland
Regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
Graham Nowland wrote:
>
> Loomis certainly wasn't ignoring the English origin of some of the work and placed
> it in a context favoured by Malory himself .
I seem to have had a bit of a brainstorm here. Loomis did in fact edit the book
Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages, but it was of course Eugene Vinaver who wrote
the specific article in that book on Sir Thomas Malory. I knew this but was also
dealing with two burglaries within a week on my house. I had no idea I was so
distracted.
My apologies.
Regards
Graham