Skip to main content

mythology - What is the meaning of Tolkien regarding the legend of King Arthur?


In the letter J.R.R. Tolkien wrote to Milton Waldan, he wrote:




Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion. For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days. And I will not repeat what I tried to say in my essay, which you read



What did he mean that the legend of King Arthur was associated with Britain but not with English? Did he mean the English language? Did he mean King Arthur was not written in English originally?



Answer



Being a philologist, Tolkien viewed Anglo-Saxon as the original source of English culture, and thus the correct source for any truly English mythology. It frustrated him that Anglo-Saxon mythology had essentially been obliterated by the Norman conquest. Of course, Tolkien appreciated the Arthur legends at a certain level—he even began an alliterative work called The Fall of Arthur that was recently published by his son. However, he knew that the King Arthur stories were not Anglo-Saxon, nor were they mythology proper (the specificity of the Christian references is one of the things that Tolkien—a Christian himself--believed prevented the Arthur stories from being true mythology).


The King Arthur stories have a Celtic ("British"), not an English ("Anglo-Saxon") origin. Presumably "Arthur" was based on a Celtic chieftain. The legends about him were developed in Wales, where Arthur had a close connection to the Otherworld of Welsh mythology. Geoffrey of Monmouth, a Welsh cleric, wrote the first "historical" account of Arthur. The stories were carried to Brittany, the Celtic region of France, from where they were picked up by the non-Breton French. Here Arthur's warriors turned into knights, and the Celtic Gawain was replaced by the French Lancelot du Lake as the foremost member of Arthur's court. The stories then made their way to England, where Thomas Mallory eventually put them into his famous Morte d'Arthur (still a French title).


The closest thing to an Anglo-Saxon Arthur story is a Middle English Death of King Arthur which was written in the alliterative Anglo-Saxon poetic style. But Tolkien considered it one of the weaker retellings of the Arthur story, not least because it presents Arthur as an emperor who spends most of the poem fighting the Roman Empire in France. That's certainly not the Arthur we normally imagine!


The "traditional English" King Arthur stories, as handed through Mallory, present an Arthur who is a creature of French romance, not English legend. Some modern fantasies have tried to present a more Celtic Arthur, but those stories did not exist at the time Tolkien wrote to Milton Waldan, and in any case would not have supplied England with the Anglo-Saxon mythology Tolkien was looking for.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

harry potter - What is the difference between Diffindo and Sectumsempra?

In the Harry Potter books, Diffindo is called the 'Severing Charm' and it’s most commonly used to cut ropes and the like. However, in the last book Hermione uses it on Ron but misses, creating a 'slash in his jeans' and his knee gets cut, causing him to 'roar in pain'. We've only seen Sectumsempra used once on screen when Harry directly uses it on Malfoy in the sixth book, but there it's mentioned that he is 'waving his wand wildly'. Wouldn't Diffindo, if used in such a fashion also cause a similar effect? Similarly, if it was able to cut Ron, it would also be able to, say, chop off an ear (George's)? In that case, how are these two spells different, except for Sectumsempra seemingly used exclusively to hurt humans? Answer While Diffindo and Sectumsempra both can be countered by other spells, Diffindo is far more easily countered. Reparo, a relatively common spell, can completely reverse its effect when used once. “He pulled the old cop...