11-09-2006, 06:51 PM
The following is my review of Littleton and Malcor's book after also researching relevant related texts:
From Scythia to Camelot, by C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor, 2000, Routledge
Littleton and Malcor have made a fresh contribution to the study of Arthurian legends. They examine both the sources and outcomes of northeast Iranian additions to the fables so popular and influential in western culture. Though many modern scholars acknowledge the contribution of Sarmatian and Alan cultures to the corpus of Arthurian history and legend, few have explained the connection in such detail.
Unfortunately, the product is less than it appears. Littleton and Malcor try to attribute all aspects of Arthurian legend to Northeast Iranian traditions, even to the point of seemingly inventing or twisting evidence (see below). Their one-size-fits-all approach becomes most strained the closer it approaches Arthur. Their case seems much more plausible, and less dependent on hearsay, as they relate it to Lancelot, Grail, Fisher King legends. Their Sword in the Stone hypothesis is pure speculation—plausible and entertaining, but thinly supported.
Littleton and Malcor’s “Introductionâ€
From Scythia to Camelot, by C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor, 2000, Routledge
Littleton and Malcor have made a fresh contribution to the study of Arthurian legends. They examine both the sources and outcomes of northeast Iranian additions to the fables so popular and influential in western culture. Though many modern scholars acknowledge the contribution of Sarmatian and Alan cultures to the corpus of Arthurian history and legend, few have explained the connection in such detail.
Unfortunately, the product is less than it appears. Littleton and Malcor try to attribute all aspects of Arthurian legend to Northeast Iranian traditions, even to the point of seemingly inventing or twisting evidence (see below). Their one-size-fits-all approach becomes most strained the closer it approaches Arthur. Their case seems much more plausible, and less dependent on hearsay, as they relate it to Lancelot, Grail, Fisher King legends. Their Sword in the Stone hypothesis is pure speculation—plausible and entertaining, but thinly supported.
Littleton and Malcor’s “Introductionâ€
"Fugit irreparabile tempus" (Irrecoverable time glides away) Virgil
Ron Andrea
Ron Andrea