On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:42 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > What do you mean by considering Malory canon? La Morte D'Arthur may be the > source of the most widely known stories of Arthur's Knights, but of course, > as you imply above, they were neither the first (by a long shot) nor the > last. For those who see some historical nuggets in the Arthur legend they > are probably not best searched for in Malory. In the context of this thread, > I don't think a modern version that deviates from Malory can really be > considered to be any more "wrong" or "inaccurate" than Malory is in his many > deviations from even earlier sources and versions of the tales.
I called Malory canon because all major works after La Morte D'Arthur use his characters and follow his plot. Older versions of tales about Arthur, Merlin, etc are out there but they haven't become the template for books, plays, ballets, movies, cartoons, and parodies. Those are based on Malory's work. I take the meaning of canon to relate to the rabbinical closing of the Hebrew Bible (or old testament) during the Roman period. The rabbinical authority declared that the bible would consist of 24 books which weren't, until that time, considered one book, and other books and/or versions could not be added, nor could included books be excluded. That means other books were out there, some referred to in the books of the bible that are now lost. So canonizing the work didn't mean it was the first or oldest version. It meant that a body had the authority to claim a final version. There is no parallel for King Arthur stories. And Malory's version has to direct ties to whatever historical Arthur there was, but follows nearly a thousand years of tales being told about Camelot. So in that sense there is no Arthurian canon. But Malory's version had such well drawn characters and such a compelling plot that it has become the version that has been the one followed in the centuries since its publication. > > I wonder if what Steve means above is that the original Arthur stories were > re-worked and elaborated in the medieval period under the influence of the > chivalry stories inspired by Charles the Great. I have had a few teachers > who liked to get their crank on complaining that the Arthur of the popular > imagination was nothing like the "real" Arthur (quotes in the original > rants), with the implication that a lot of the romances of the round table > were Charlemagne derivatives (if not actually stolen). The Charlemagne stories might stand out because they were the ones that were written down. The adventures of some of the knights of the round table could have been independent tales told in different parts of Europe which eventually found their way into the Arthurian framework. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
