Monday, June 23, 2003 ::
Definitive Comparison
I have just read the Mary Stewart Merlin Trilogy, in which she openly admits a liberal use of imagination, and not research. Is there a definitive comparison of the legends and the facts in any one book, or am I doomed to read numerous accounts of various legends and in the end still not know if there is a widely accepted version?
--stormy8079

Given that very little exists in the way of facts about King Arthur, every version you read will have a healthy dose of imagination in it. This includes the "definitive" versions of the legends, such as Thomas Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur from the 1400's, and Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain of the 12th century. They are "definitive" only because they informed the way the legend has been interpreted so many times to this day, the difference being that Geoffrey of Monmouth's version is largely free of the influence of French courtly love on the legend, and Mallory's is not.

Unfortunately, just about everything written about King Arthur is based on speculation and imagination. The few facts we have are fairly suspect. The evidence is largely circumstantial; but as they say, enough circumstantial evidence strung together is fairly convincing.

For the earliest versions of the legend in one volume, check out Richard White's King Arthur: In Legend and History.

:: posted by Merrie Haskell at 6:29 AM ::