The Fall of Arthur

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Err

Kennedy:

Vinaver's suggestion that Malory first became interested in the Arthurian legend through English rather than French sources is plausible... but Vinaver's accompanying hypothesis, accepted by many scholars, that ... [etc] ... are, in my opinion, questionable. [emphasis added]

It seems that Kennedy's objection is primarily confined to Vinaver's notion that Book II was written before Book I. Certainly he has no problem with, in fact refers to approvingly, Vinaver's conclusion that Book II was largely taken directly from the AMA (except for the ending), a derivation concealed by Caxton's revision.

Let's also not forget that CRT has been out of academia since 1975.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

It seems that Kennedy's objection is primarily confined to Vinaver's notion that Book II was written before Book I. Certainly he has no problem with, in fact refers to approvingly, Vinaver's conclusion that Book II was largely taken directly from the AMA (except for the ending), a derivation concealed by Caxton's revision.

I am aware of no article that has ever denied that Malory’s Book II was not taken directly from the Allierative Morte Arthure, whether before or after the finding of the Winchester Manuscript of Malory. Are you uniquely denying this? If not, then what is the point of your comment?

Let's also not forget that CRT has been out of academia since 1975.

I don’t understand what you are talking about, but merely assume that by CRT you do not mean cathode ray tube.

*Oops*! I now realize that by CRT you meant Christopher [John] Reuel Tolkien. However I don’t see that this is a valid excuse for this error by Christopher Tolkien, or for any error. I do believe that this error comes from casual searching in a subject in which he was not a specialist rather than expressing a strong and considered belief in Vinaver’s correctness.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I am aware of no article that has ever denied that Malory’s Book II was not taken directly from the Allierative Morte Arthure, whether before or after the finding of the Winchester Manuscript of Malory. Are you uniquely denying this? If not, then what is the point of your comment?

Nobody denied it before or after the WM, because nobody had even pointed it out before Vinaver and the WM, and since it's so obviously correct, nobody afterwards AFAIK has seriously disagreed with it.

You wrote

In fact Vinaver absolutely failed to prove his case and I know no Arthurian scholar today who would accept it.

One would take that to mean that all modern scholars, exemplum Kennedy, reject both parts of the thesis as you cited it from CRT: (a) that Book II was written first, and (b) that it was derived from the AMA. If you only intended to refute (a), you could have been more clear about it.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

One would take that to mean that all modern scholars, exemplum Kennedy, reject both parts of the thesis as you cited it from CRT: (a) that Book II was written first, and (b) that it was derived from the AMA. If you only intended to refute (a), you could have been more clear about it.

I intended to indicate that Christopher Tolkien’s Fall of Arthur was the only modern book I have read that gave any credence to the theory that Malory wrote Book II before any other surviving Arthurian work, which you are correct is one of the main points of Kennedy’s essay. I also intended to indicate that Vinaver’s theory that Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur was intended to be read as separate and unconnected tales was equally unsupported today.

I did not mention at all the theory that Book II of Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur was primarily based on the Alliterative Morte Arthure but know of no-one who has ever questioned it and so saw no reason to bring the matter up.