Mark's comments (member since May 21, 2009)

Mark's comments from the Arthuriana -- all things King Arthur ! group.

Barbarossa wrote: "OK. Maybe just been reading too much recently.
They're both just local hardmen that got mythologised then? I suppose the "bear" connection isn't too surprising, apart from the use of violent anima..."

Not quite sure how you can read "too much!" But certainly when you read a lot of medieval literature, you begin to suspect that all stories are linked in one way or other. And it's made more complicated by the fact that there don't seem to have been many distinct names in the medieval period. Eight Henries, eight Edwards ... give me a break. At least we can't get King John confused with anyone else!

Cheers,
Mark Adderley

Barbarossa wrote: "Thanks Mark.
In your research have you found any convincing evidence for Arthur prior to the 9th cent?
You mentioned Beowulf...As Beowulf and Arthur may share an etymology from "bear" do you thin..."

There's the Welsh poem "Gododdin," written shortly after 600, I think, which mentions Arthur. The stanza in which Arthur is mentioned might have been written later than that, though, and inserted at a later date. The same can be said of the brief mention of Arthur in the "Annals of Wales." But between them, I think they're really suggestive. Modern historians have a lot of scorn with the "no smoke without a fire" line of reasoning; but when you see smoke, what other inference can you really draw? It's a truism in medieval studies that a given story must necessarily be older than the manuscript in which it's preserved. That probably puts the story of Troit back into the eighth century, at least.

It's an interesting parallel that both Arthur's and Beowulf's name have the "bear" etymology. I haven't read any conclusive evidence that they're connected. The two cultures--Anglo Saxon and Celtic--aren't linked.

The boar hunt motif occurs in the Mirabilia section of Nennius' Historia Brittonum, which means that, at the latest, it's dated at 829.

I think C&O is dated largely on the basis of its language. However, there's absolutely no influence on it from Geoffrey of Monmouth, and that's verging on the impossible if it were written after 1136--Geoffrey's book was one of the most widely known of the Middle Ages.

The usual date given to the tale itself, rather than the manuscript, is c. 1100.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley

Barbarossa wrote: "Just starting The Mabinogion having not read it in many years. What struck me was the sudden realisation that a text I'd always assumed was ancient was in fact not as old as I'd thou..."

Most manuscripts of medieval works are considerably newer than the works themselves. Thus, Beowulf was written about 750, but exists in a manuscript copied about 1000. Most of the manuscripts containing the Mabinogion tales are relatively recent; the oldest seems to be "Culhwch and Olwen," which was almost certainly pre-Geoffrey of Monmouth, though not by much more than half a century.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley

You're not too late--the discussion actually just began. I know about Evangeline Walton, but only vaguely. Is she a translator of the Mabinogion, or a reteller?

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
Author, The Hawk and the Wolf

Davies' edition has good notes--I'd say more useful than Jones/Jones. Gantz, though, has the best notes of all. It's just a pity his actual translation is so boring!

Cheers,
Mark.

Sioned Davies' translation is the best one yet. In my opinion, that is.

In the first place, she divides dialogue up into paragraphs according to modern practice, which makes it much easier to follow the dialogue than in ALL previous translations.

In the second, Davies doesn't attempt to translate the tales into some kind of pseudo-medieval English of the "thou wottest well what thou dost" kind. She translates into almost colloquial modern English. One of the neat things about her translation is that the Welsh switches to the present tense at moments of high tension, and Davies follows the pattern. That's a feature of oral delivery--we tend to tell exciting stories in the present tense, and use the past when the emotional involvement is not quite so high.

The standard translation has always been The Mabinogion, translated by Gwyn Jones and Thomas Jones. But the language is stiff and archaic, and it's occasionally hard to follow because of their refusal to divide dialogue into separate paragraphs.

The other translation is The Mabinogion, the Penguin translation by Jeffrey Gantz. It has useful notes, but somehow makes the tales utterly dull. More academic use, I suppose, than anything.

A cheap alternative would be The Mabinogion, a Dover reprint of Lady Charlotte Guest's nineteenth-century translation. She's inaccurate in places, but it's serviceable.

I've used the Jones/Jones and Davies translations to teach the Mabinogion, and got a much better response for Davies. One student who took both classes said it made a big difference.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley
Author, The Hawk and the Wolf

We can start right away, if you like.

Cheers,
mark Adderley
Author, The Hawk and the Wolf

Here are some questions to think about as you read the story "Pwyll, Prince of Dyfed." In her translation of The Mabinogion, Sioned Davies calls this the First Branch of the Mabinogi:

How does Rhiannon show the sharpness of her wit and quickness of her mind in this Tale?

What is the significance of horses in this tale?

In what sense is Rhiannon’s penance appropriate to her alleged crime?

How does Teyrnon recognize the child’s true identity, and what personal qualities compel him to return him to his true parents?

Thank you! I'd certainly like to share my thoughts on writing.

It's a challenge, but lots of fun, to write an Arthurian novel. Because you're working within a well-known tradition, everybody knows--or they think they know, anyway--what's going to happen. There's no sense of surprise in your book.

I tried to get around this disadvantage in two ways. First, I went to sources that most readers aren't aware of--the Welsh poems "Preiddeu Annwn" and "Yr Afallennau," for example, or the tale "How Culhwch Won Olwen" from "The Mabinogion."

The second trick is to absolutely capitalize on the fact that your readers know what's going to happen. For example, the "wolf" in the title of my book is the Brittonic warrior queen Budicca (which I spell Boudicea, to differentiate my creation from the historical person).

No matter how you change history, you can't have Budicca successful in her final battle with the Romans. But her impending tragedy casts a kind of feeling of tragedy over her relationship with Merlin.

The same goes with the more traditionally-used characters. We know that Merlin will eventually have some connection with the fifth-century Arthur; but here he is, a contemporary of the first-century Budicca.

Hopefully, curiosity about such questions keeps the book moving, and keeps readers interested.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
Author, The Hawk and the Wolf.

If you choose The Mabinogion, I can lead that discussion--I teach medieval literature, so it won't be difficult.

If you choose The Hawk and the Wolf, I should point out that it's an expensive book. $26, and it's not available in paperback yet. So the best thing would be to have your local library buy it. The other thing about it is that the sequel, The Hawk and the Cup, will be out in March, and that WILL be a paperback.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
Author, The Hawk and the Wolf.

I think The Mabinogion would be an excellent choice. If I might suggest the recent translation by Sioned Davies is far more readable than the others available.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
Author, The Hawk and the Wolf

Alas, it's only in hardback right now. I'm trying to negotiate a paperback, but it probably won't happen for a while.

Cheers,
Mark.

I would be honoured if we read my book The Hawk and the Wolf. The sequel, The Hawk and the Cup, will be out in March.

One of my problems with the "Idylls of the King" is this idyll. Arthur seems so self-righteous, so unforgiving in his attitude while he's forgiving Guinevere with his words. So I began to wonder why, apart from the fairly usual Vioctorian misogyny, Tennyson would have portrayed their last meeting this way.

It's interesting that Tennyson originally published four idylls, this one plus "Merlin and Vivien," "Gereint and Enid" and "Lancelot and Elaine," in 1857 under the collective title "The True and the False." I've always found it slightly disappointing that he focuses so much on the false, and so little on the true--only Enid seems to be really true in all those portrayals of women.

The problem about Guinevere seems to be that her disloyalty touches the whole court. Look at lines 24-26 of "The Marriage of Geraint," where we learn that it's the queen's lack of fidelity that prompts Geraint to mistrust his own wife.

Guinevere's second fault seems to be that she doesn't seem to think it worthwhile to strive for perfection. In "Lancelot and Elaine," she shows herself to be scornful of Arthur's perfection: "He is all fault who hath no fault at all," she says (132; see 121-33).

Guinevere seems to mistake what Arthur is all about. She sees Camelot simply as a means to make her physical comfort more. Tristram is the same. But Arthur has a spiritual purpose. If he has a fault, it is that he is unable to promote his spiritual aims in the physical world.

So this is why, I think, Arthur is so self-righteous in this idyll. Guinevere has never, never understood Arthur or his aims. I'm not sure if I like reading it, but I can see a little of why it happens like it does.

One thing I find interesting about this idyll, is how John Boorman used imagery from it in his movie "Excalibur." The fight in the mist, where you can hardly tell who's who--he took it right from Tennyson. He also took some of his dialogue from Tennyson's "Guinevere," but twisted it a little so that it became a reconciliation scene.

I think that testifies to the power Tennyson still exerts over the modern imagination, even though many have rejected the Victorian values he embraces so enthusiastically!

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
Author, The Hawk and the Wolf.

I read it, a very long time ago, but didn't like it very much. It struck me as a bit cynical. Although some comments are hilarious in the book: "You're a page? You ain't much more than a paragraph."

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
The Hawk and the Wolf

Ron wrote: "Maybe forty years after or maybe Gildas was born the year of the battle and writing forty years later, or . . .

One theory (for the non-mentioning of "Arthur's" names) is that Gildas had it in for..."

I've heard that theory too, but there's something else to think about. Gildas wasn't really writing history, he was writing a sermon. He uses history to illustrate his points (and does it badly--look at his explanation about how Hadrian's Wall was built), but his main point is a spiritual one. In this genre, all you have to do is hint at a person, and the audience, whom you assume to have roughly the same background as yourself, fills in the blanks. It's part of the fun of the genre. (Yes, sermons were fun back then. Hard to believe now.) If you want to see a more modern voice doing this, check out G. K. Chesterton's
The Everlasting Man or Hilaire Belloc's Europe and the Faith. I read or re-read both of these recently, and was struck by the similarity in tone with Gildas.

Another possible theory, of course, is that Arthur simply wasn't an historical character. The fact that Bede couldn't find any evidence for his existence tells seriously against his historicity. Bede was a very careful historian, and consulted both written and oral tales. If there had been anything about Arthur, he would have known.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
Author, The Hawk and the Wolf.

That's pretty much what I meant. The first Arthurian novel I noticed to have such a negative slant was Henry Treece's The Great Captains. It's become more and more popular of late--think of "The Dark Knight," "Superman Returns" and the recent James Bond movies. Writers seem to think that they're introducing complexity into a character by giving him bouts of depression or unreasonable behaviour, or a bad childhood or a tendency to sadism that he struggles to overcome or whatever. It's just a preference, though. And sometimes I even like the "dark" portrayal of a character (I love Starbuck in the new "Battlestar Galactica," for example). But not in Arthur. My preference is for "once and future kings," even if T. H. White has worn a bit thin for me.

Incidentally, some of the earliest portrayals of Arthur were "dark" by my definition. The saints' lives often denigrate Arthur's reputation as a way of enhancing the reputation of the saint who is the protagonist of the story.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley
The Hawk and the Wolf

From a certain point of view, Malory's book itself is a retelling, since he was adapting prose French works from about 250 years previously. That being the case, I'd have to say Malory, Chretien de Troyes, and the Mabinogion.

It's a little more difficult if I have to restrict myself to twentieth and twenty-first century retellings. Then I'd have to agree that The Once and Future King is the best. I read it a very long time ago, wrote my MA thesis on it, and taught it a couple of times. I'm afraid I find it a little naive now, but perhaps that's just because I've been over-exposed to it.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
The Hawk and the Wolf