I've been meaning to finally read The Sword and the Stone myself but have lacked the discipline to do so, I commend you for succeeding in the endeavor.
Arthurian legend is honestly a hard sell in that it does not have an easy starting point for the layman. (Similar issue for Robin Hood; there isn't a precise source text to work from and there are multiple interpretations over time so usually you latch on to the most culturally relevant example available.) It is however invaluable to the historian because of how it was sociopolitical propaganda through the centuries - the Welsh created it as a cultural rallying point against the Anglo-Saxons and in turn the Normans began to claim it to validate their rule with several kings post-William the Conqueror claiming descent from Arthur or paying homage to a supposed tomb. The Tudor dynasty began trying to pretend it was a rebirth of Camelot, that's why Henry VIII's older brother was named Arthur and during the early rule of that dynasty there was a significant push to celebrate chivalry. The Normans and Tudors understood the power of the myth and it's likely T.H. White did too, hence he used it to push his views, the same way Mark Twain did in A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Arthurian legend is targeted because it is the defining mythology of Britain with the core detail being who the rightful ruler is. By controlling that, the narrator controls who they decide should rightfully rule Britain or what Britain itself (and its descendent cultures) should be. Robin Hood is sometimes targeted for a similar reason in that it has a disenfranchised people of England being exploited by an oppressive government ruled by an illegitimate king (even though the real John suceeded Richard and every English monarch is subsequently descended from him, he was nonetheless a terrible leader and ferociously unpopular in his time to the point of nearly being deposed) but it has less power than the Athurian legend because it is post-Norman, post-Anglo-Saxon and is not the genesis of the British cultural identity.
"Anyway, being a pacifist in the UK during WWII was probably not the right choice, but as someone who has lived through multiple bullshit imperialist wars that were justified just like this, with propagandistic journalists painting anyone who didn't full-tilt support said wars as being unpatriotic and motivated by hatred of the U.S., and whose arguments featured this level of hypocrisy... I feel for T. H. White. IDK, being a pacifist in any time is hard."
I checked when the book came out and if White was writing in the mid 30s then he'd no doubt have seen the impact WW1 had on Europe in terms of the utter waste it was. I'd argue there's still cultural trauma remaining over a century later as a good chunk of young men were thrown into a muddy meat grinder for nothing, Germany financially and socially collapsed with German people permanently demonised, Russia ended up so demoralised the revolution happened (and then rumours of massacres, cannibalism and the horrors of the Holodomor came out), machine guns and aerial bombing were now officially tools of war with the latter having hit places like Yorkshire (which traumatised J.R.R. Tolkein as he was recovering in a hospital from his war injuries at the time)... it is very easy to see why there was an anti-war sentiment prior to Hitler invading Poland. (I think one of the few good things to come out of WW1 was the end of the Ottoman empire in that it led to Kemal Attaturk reforming Turkey but even then you still had the Greek genocide carrying on.)
Between the second book with Arthur and this third book featuring Lancelot, this book contains a lot of knights being tricked or spelled into sleeping with a woman out of wedlock and there being a child born out of that union who is Important later on. I checked and all of these stories of female-on-male rape are pre-existing stories, so it's not a T. H. White invention but just there in the lore. I find it a bit weird how recurring an element it is.
I wonder if that's anything to do with the disaster that usually came with the existence of bastard children when the father held status. Edward III's fourth son John of Gaunt famously legitimised his bastards with Katherine Swynford, resulting in the Beaufort line which is where Henry Tudor got his very flimsy claim to the English throne (and mother's army bankrolling finances) allowing him to take part in the Wars of the Roses but I don't know if that influenced Le Morte d'Arthur at all, though from my understanding the author was English and lived through the Wars of the Roses. (Another War of Roses bastardry issue was Edward IV being seduced by Elizabeth Woodville in a wood and there being the claim he was legally engaged to another woman at the time which Edward's younger brother Richard III used to usurp the throne from Edward and Elizabeth's son Edward V.) Granted that's late 1400s so the cases predating that are probably more a general advisory message concerning monogamy that one would expect in medieval christendom. I had a discussion a while back over why Morgan LeFay has the water related name and I suggested it's to do with northern european culture having issues with water-based women. The scottish had the selkies, the flemish and frenchies had Melusine the humanoid-serpant-fish demon who was believed to be an ancestor of the Plantagenet dynasty (who married into the Norman line in the early 12th century and gave George R.R. Martin millions of dollars worth of copy).
Btw have you seen Excalibur? It does its own dark 80s take on Arthurian legend with anachronistic armour and everyone being Irish but I can't help admiring its style. Visually it is a treat and there are some great AMVs mixing the footage to O Fortuna.
no subject
Arthurian legend is honestly a hard sell in that it does not have an easy starting point for the layman. (Similar issue for Robin Hood; there isn't a precise source text to work from and there are multiple interpretations over time so usually you latch on to the most culturally relevant example available.) It is however invaluable to the historian because of how it was sociopolitical propaganda through the centuries - the Welsh created it as a cultural rallying point against the Anglo-Saxons and in turn the Normans began to claim it to validate their rule with several kings post-William the Conqueror claiming descent from Arthur or paying homage to a supposed tomb. The Tudor dynasty began trying to pretend it was a rebirth of Camelot, that's why Henry VIII's older brother was named Arthur and during the early rule of that dynasty there was a significant push to celebrate chivalry. The Normans and Tudors understood the power of the myth and it's likely T.H. White did too, hence he used it to push his views, the same way Mark Twain did in A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Arthurian legend is targeted because it is the defining mythology of Britain with the core detail being who the rightful ruler is. By controlling that, the narrator controls who they decide should rightfully rule Britain or what Britain itself (and its descendent cultures) should be. Robin Hood is sometimes targeted for a similar reason in that it has a disenfranchised people of England being exploited by an oppressive government ruled by an illegitimate king (even though the real John suceeded Richard and every English monarch is subsequently descended from him, he was nonetheless a terrible leader and ferociously unpopular in his time to the point of nearly being deposed) but it has less power than the Athurian legend because it is post-Norman, post-Anglo-Saxon and is not the genesis of the British cultural identity.
"Anyway, being a pacifist in the UK during WWII was probably not the right choice, but as someone who has lived through multiple bullshit imperialist wars that were justified just like this, with propagandistic journalists painting anyone who didn't full-tilt support said wars as being unpatriotic and motivated by hatred of the U.S., and whose arguments featured this level of hypocrisy... I feel for T. H. White. IDK, being a pacifist in any time is hard."
I checked when the book came out and if White was writing in the mid 30s then he'd no doubt have seen the impact WW1 had on Europe in terms of the utter waste it was. I'd argue there's still cultural trauma remaining over a century later as a good chunk of young men were thrown into a muddy meat grinder for nothing, Germany financially and socially collapsed with German people permanently demonised, Russia ended up so demoralised the revolution happened (and then rumours of massacres, cannibalism and the horrors of the Holodomor came out), machine guns and aerial bombing were now officially tools of war with the latter having hit places like Yorkshire (which traumatised J.R.R. Tolkein as he was recovering in a hospital from his war injuries at the time)... it is very easy to see why there was an anti-war sentiment prior to Hitler invading Poland. (I think one of the few good things to come out of WW1 was the end of the Ottoman empire in that it led to Kemal Attaturk reforming Turkey but even then you still had the Greek genocide carrying on.)
Between the second book with Arthur and this third book featuring Lancelot, this book contains a lot of knights being tricked or spelled into sleeping with a woman out of wedlock and there being a child born out of that union who is Important later on. I checked and all of these stories of female-on-male rape are pre-existing stories, so it's not a T. H. White invention but just there in the lore. I find it a bit weird how recurring an element it is.
I wonder if that's anything to do with the disaster that usually came with the existence of bastard children when the father held status. Edward III's fourth son John of Gaunt famously legitimised his bastards with Katherine Swynford, resulting in the Beaufort line which is where Henry Tudor got his very flimsy claim to the English throne (and mother's army bankrolling finances) allowing him to take part in the Wars of the Roses but I don't know if that influenced Le Morte d'Arthur at all, though from my understanding the author was English and lived through the Wars of the Roses. (Another War of Roses bastardry issue was Edward IV being seduced by Elizabeth Woodville in a wood and there being the claim he was legally engaged to another woman at the time which Edward's younger brother Richard III used to usurp the throne from Edward and Elizabeth's son Edward V.) Granted that's late 1400s so the cases predating that are probably more a general advisory message concerning monogamy that one would expect in medieval christendom. I had a discussion a while back over why Morgan LeFay has the water related name and I suggested it's to do with northern european culture having issues with water-based women. The scottish had the selkies, the flemish and frenchies had Melusine the humanoid-serpant-fish demon who was believed to be an ancestor of the Plantagenet dynasty (who married into the Norman line in the early 12th century and gave George R.R. Martin millions of dollars worth of copy).
Btw have you seen Excalibur? It does its own dark 80s take on Arthurian legend with anachronistic armour and everyone being Irish but I can't help admiring its style. Visually it is a treat and there are some great AMVs mixing the footage to O Fortuna.