The Fall of Arthur

[Aiwendil]

Well, I've read it.

First of all, the poem (what was written of it) is, alas, rather short. I count only 853 lines total across the four finished cantos and the unfinished fifth. But there are, as one would expect from Tolkien, a few notes, outlines, and very rough scraps of verse indicating how it would have continued.

What the poem lacks in quantity it makes up for in quality. The verse is excellent; this is among the finest pieces of poetry Tolkien wrote, and I would say that his mastery of the alliterative metre here surpasses that of his other long works in that form ('The Children of Hurin' and the 'New Lays' of Sigurd and Gudrun). Particularly effective are the frequent evocations of weather and natural scenery; for example:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

In the South from sleep to swift fury
a storm was stirred, striding northward
over leagues of water loud with thunder
and roaring rain it rushed onward.
Their hoary heads hills and mountains
tossed in tumult on the towering seas.
On Benwick's beaches breakers pounding
ground gigantic grumbling boulders
with ogre anger. The air was salt
with spume and spindrift splashed to vapour.

But the real strength of the poem is in the characters that it briefly but effectively sketches. It is focused on Arthur, Gawain, Mordred, Guinevere, and Lancelot, and in a minimum of lines each of them becomes a clearly defined, well-rounded character.

Comparison with The Legend of Sigurd & Gudrun is probably inevitable. That work is undeniably the more ambitious, and the larger in scope; even if 'The Fall of Arthur' had been completed it would have been shorter and more restricted in its action. But - and perhaps precisely because of its smaller scope - 'The Fall of Arthur' feels somewhat richer and more perfectly constructed. In particular, I find the phrasing in 'Arthur' clearer and more natural than that in Tolkien's Norse poems.

As for the story, in draws chiefly from the alliterative Morte Arthure and Malory's Morte d'Arthur, following each by turns. There are, of course, points at which Tolkien departs from these sources, largely with the aims of simplifying the story or of making the plot more plausible. And particularly in the ending, as projected in his notes, he strikes his own path (though Layamon's Brut is an influence there).

The extant poem is followed by three sections of commentary by Christopher Tolkien, and as usual his commentary is exceedingly clear and cogent. The first section places the work in the context of Arthurian literature, tracing the elements of the story that come from various sources and exploring the way in which Tolkien shaped those elements for his own purposes. The second presents the notes and drafting for the unwritten portions of the poem and also looks at the very interesting but rather enigmatic connection between the poem and Tolkien's own Legendarium: the apparent identification of Avalon with Tol Eressea. The third section is a condensed but illuminating account of the evolution of the poem, and of notable changes from one draft to the next.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Will be picking it up today.

I'm not surprised if it is "richer" than Sigurd and Gudrun; the latter was very consciously written in imitation of the Eddaic style, terse, even disjointed, intended to catch the fleeting moment, to make an impact, like a flash of lightning caught on film. A-S verse was more ruminative and discursive; and to that the 14th Century alliterative revival (the apparent model for FoA) added the High Middle Ages' love of texture.

In terms of directors, the Eddas were David Lynch, the Anglo-Saxons Ingmar Bergman, the M-EAR Kurosawa.

[Zigûr]

Apparently I ordered this on Amazon a few months ago as part of a bulk Tolkien purchase without realising it wasn't out yet and it's now on its way. Very curious to see what the Anglo-Saxon enthusiast Professor Tolkien makes of this Welsh tradition!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Very curious to see what the Anglo-Saxon enthusiast Professor Tolkien makes of this Welsh tradition!

Apparently by removing most all the Welsh element. Tolkien is working mostly from the Geoffrey-tradition by way of Laymon and the Alliterative M-A, with the addition of the Lancelot element which the French added in (as modified by Malory).

[davem]

Any reference to Williams' Arthurian poems in the book? I've often wondered if one reason Tolkien left FoA was because of Taliesin Through Logres. Apparently Tolkien dropped FoA around 1937 & 'Taliesin' was published in 1938. Lewis & Williams were corresponding from, what, 1936 so would he have read TTL & made Tolkien aware of it?

Or is this all covered in the book?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by davem

Any reference to Williams' Arthurian poems in the book? I've often wondered if one reason Tolkien left FoA was because of Taliesin Through Logres. Apparently Tolkien dropped FoA around 1937 & 'Taliesin' was published in 1938. Lewis & Williams were corresponding from, what, 1936 so would he have read TTL & made Tolkien aware of it?

Or is this all covered in the book?

Tolkien had never met Williams at the time Arthur was written (1933-34)

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Tolkien had never met Williams at the time Arthur was written (1933-34)

A) I knew that, and

B) that wasn't one of the questions I asked.

May I assume CT doesn't mention Williams' work at all? Would Tolkien not have brought up his own poem on Arthur when Williams was reading from RotSS during Inklings meetings?