Quote:
Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin
It seems that Kennedy's objection is primarily confined to Vinaver's notion that Book II was written before Book I. Certainly he has no problem with, in fact refers to approvingly, Vinaver's conclusion that Book II was largely taken directly from the AMA (except for the ending), a derivation concealed by Caxton's revision.
|
I am aware of no article that has ever denied that Malory’s Book II was not taken directly from the
Allierative Morte Arthure, whether before or after the finding of the Winchester Manuscript of Malory. Are you uniquely denying this? If not, then what is the point of your comment?
Quote:
|
Let's also not forget that CRT has been out of academia since 1975.
|
I don’t understand what you are talking about, but merely assume that by CRT you do not mean
cathode ray tube.
*Oops*! I now realize that by CRT you meant
Christopher [John] Reuel Tolkien. However I don’t see that this is a valid excuse for this error by Christopher Tolkien, or for any error. I do believe that this error comes from casual searching in a subject in which he was not a specialist rather than expressing a strong and considered belief in Vinaver’s correctness.