Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

New Directions in Arthurian Studies ed. by Alan Lupack

2003; Scriptoriun Press; Volume: 13; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1353/art.2003.0044

1934-1539

Michael A. Faletra,

Medieval Literature and History

124ARTHURIANA picking his way surefootedly through the multiplicity ofdiverse images ofRobin, he is very good at establishing the continuing links between the various incarnations. There is always room for disagreement with Knight's judgments. His dismissal of the 1950 film Rogues ofSherwoodForest as 'fairly unexciting' is a curious comment on this rollicking, roistering, all-action swashbuckler. He takes an unexpectedly positive and benign view ofKevin Costner's 1991 film Robin Hood—Prince ofThieves, which for most people was dominated by Alan Rickman's gloriously over-thc-top Sherriffrather rhan Costner's lacklustre and sanctimonious Robin. There are also a few uncharacteristic slips. The 1588 play George-a-Greene was attributed to Robert Greene not Richard Greene, who was too busystarringin rhe 1950s television series to write an Elizabethan play. The inverted commas he puts around the title ofthe composer of the i860 opera Robin Hood, 'Professor' MacFarren suggests that is unaware that George Alexander MacFarren was indeed Professor of Music at Cambridge. Knight also seems not to realize that the 1872 novel Prince ofThieves, attributed to Dumas, is basically a French translation ofPierce Egan's mid-Victorian 'penny dreadful' version ofthe story. But these minor cavils aside, this volume is a lively, wide-ranging and stimulating addition to the ever-growing scholarly corpus on Robin Hood. JEFFREY RICHARDS Lancaster University alan lupack, ed., New Directions in Arthurian Studies, Arthurian Studies LI. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2002. Pp. ix, 168. isbn: 0—85991-642-1. $70. Not organized like odier fields under the tidy aegis ofa specific period, author, or theoretical orientation, Arthurian studies is a slippery if vibrant discipline. The eleven essxys gathered in rhis strong collection not only delineate the current status and future trajectory of Arthurian scholarship but also highlight its continued relevance in rhe twenty-first century. The two essays that provide the best overviews ofArthurian studies as a whole are Norris Lacy's 'Arthurian Research in a New Century' and Bonnie Wheeler's "The Project ofArthurian Studies.' The picture theypaint is not an entirely hopeful one. Lacy in particular laments—and rightly so—the decline of language and palaeography skills among new medievalist Arthurians. Hc then wisely urges rhe next generation of Arthurians to continue to edit and teach the many hitherto understudied medieval Arthurian texts. Wheeler, though applauding the significant achievements ofArthurians in the past century, looks ahead to the exciting critical landscapes offered by New Historicism, the New Formalism, and various materialist studies. She ends her piece, however, wirh a sobering appeal for Arthurian scholars to come to terms with a pervasive Arthurian Aryanism' (133); only, she claims, by scrutinizing the potentially racist underpinnings of the Arthurian metanarrative can Arthurian studies move confidently into the next century. In 'King Arthur and Black American Popular Culture,' Barbara Tepa Lupack REVIEWS125 takes up Wheeler's challenge. Through her survey ofthe uses ofArthurian legend in African-American popular culture, she indeed decentéis Arthurian Aryanism, noting the frequent alignment of the black intelligentsia with an Arthurian (and oftenTennysonian) sense ofsocial idealism. Her essay concludes with a fascinating history of the Post Office Knights of the Round Table, a charitable organization founded byblack postalworkers duringthe 1930s. IfLupacks piece answersWheeler's call to arms, then Siin Echard's answers Lacy's. Both in her examination of Latin Arthurian literature and in her focus on some lesser-known Arthurian texts, Echard is perhaps the onlyessayist in thisvolume immediately to engage Lacy's exhortation toArthurian medievalists. Hertantalizinganalysis ofLatin romancesandofGeoffrey ofMonmouth should remind us ofthe centrality ofLatin texts in the development ofthe Arthurian corpus. Many ofthe essays in this volume provide critical surveys that might also serve as fruitful touchstones for undergraduate or graduate class discussions. Foremost here, I think, is Robert Blanch and Julian Wassermann piece on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. And in their respective essays on rhe Morte Darthur, P. J. C. Field and Derek Breweralso provide helpful frameworks for thestudyand teachingofMalory. David Staines in turn provides a thoughtful analysis of TheIdylb oftheKing, reading Guinevere as the poem's central figure. Arthurian scholars who incorporate later texts into their courseswill benefit from RaymondThompson's survey ofthevillains ofmodern Arthurian literature. Although Thompson neglects a consideration of the troubling female...