In the mid-nineties, I think, I didn't look it up, an archaeological group thought they might have discovered the ruins of Camelot. Eventually, it was proved that they weren't the ruins of Arthur's castle at all, and, I'm sorry to say, it wasn't the Mordred Society that debunked it, but a reputable group. In spite of Emily's hope, it is almost certain that the Arthurian legend is just that. We know the magic and the sword in the stone stuff didn't happen. But probably the man didn't exist either. If there was an Arthur in the 6th century, he didn't live during the era of towering castles, jousting, armor, and damsels in distress. Things were more primitive in Great Britain then. Also, much of Arthur's story suggests Christian symbolism. A leader who forms a group of disciples. A disciple who betrays him. The willingness to break laws because it is the correct thing to do. The fact that Sir Bedivere denies three times Arthur's request for him to return Excalibur to the Lady of the Lake. And, of course, the suggestion that Arthur will someday return. Probably those who created the earliest tales of Arthur were reinforcing their Chrisian beliefs.
I subtitled ARTHUR REDUX a modern morality play, because morality plays, made famous in the middle ages, were allegorical. In allegory, characters represent and are often named for, specific vices, virtues, and aspects of the human condition. The most famous morality play is EVERYMAN written by the very prolific Anonymous. It is the story of "every man." Facing the character Death, Everyman tries to line up support for himself to make it into heaven. Though characters like Wealth fail him, Knowledge follows him to the grave, and Good Deeds follows him to judgment. I think that's pretty close to the story. I haven't read it since about 1967 and didn't find it very exciting then. That's why the fishergirls in AR were named Patience, Modesty, and Chastity, and why the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Blessed Virtures were characters in the play, and therefore, why ARTHUR REDUX is a morality play.
The different interpretations of the Arthurian legend are really interesting. I started re-reading THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING that was one of my play gifts, and it's as delightful as I remembered it. And don't think it's just Disney's THE SWORD IN THE STONE. THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING is a fun and occasionally challenging book to read. If you read Mallory, you will be sampling what are called "medieval romances." They were the popular fiction of their day. A really good one is "The Tale of Sir Gareth." They're filled with chivalry, love for ladies, magic, secret identities and other good stuff. I love Tennyson's IDYLLS OF THE KING. The IDYLLS are lengthy poems about Arthur, and the saddest of the Arthurian interpretations, full of Victorian guilt and remorse, because that was the era in which Tennyson wrote. They're all interesting, and Jacob Hess told me about a John Steinbeck version of the Arthurian legend which I'm sure is great, too.
Again, most noble cast, crew, and Alexis, thank you for these fine six weeks. This message now officially delivered by blog to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment