Err
Kennedy:
Quote:
|
Vinaver's suggestion that Malory first became interested in the Arthurian legend through English rather than French sources is plausible... but Vinaver's accompanying hypothesis, accepted by many scholars, that ... [etc] ... are, in my opinion, questionable. [emphasis added]
|
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.
Let's also not forget that CRT has been out of academia since 1975.