Books:

The Romance of Arthur. James J. Wilhelm
Arthurian Romances. Chretien de Troyes
The Lancelot-Grail Reader. Norris J. Lacy,
Le Morte Darthur. Thomas Malory
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. Mark Twain (Bantam)
The Nonexistent Knight and the Cloven Viscount. Italo Calvino
The Acts of King Arthur and His Knights. John Steinbeck.

Notes on the reading: The course will be based on a selection of the key works of Arthurian literature. We will begin with the best-known version of the story, Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur, in order to assess the components of the Arthurian legend and their significance. Then we will take a step backward, examining how the pieces of the tradition begin to coalesce over time. We will investigate a few well-known side traditions, and we will consider how the legend is revised over time to fit new cultural values and concerns.

Course Requirements:

o Class discussion (15%)
o 2 in-class presentations (5 mins each) reviewing a scholarly work on the scheduled reading
and providing a list of further reading for the class (15%)
o one paper (15-20 pages) due the last week of the course (70%)

Notes on the presentations: You will be asked to select a literary text (i.e. Lanval, Erec and Enide, etc.) on which to present a scholarly paper you find of interest. Guidelines for reviewing scholarly papers may be found at the end of this syllabus. In addition, you will be asked to provide the class with a brief bibliography of further critical readings on the text. The scholarly works you select are entirely up to you; however, I will be happy to confer with you beforehand to make suggestions or help you select among works. If you like, the presentation and bibliography you compile may also be used as the basis for your seminar paper.

Notes on the paper: The final seminar paper will comprise the bulk of your overall grade (70%). You may write on any topic you like, as long as your thesis focuses on one or more of the literary texts treated in class. This work will require secondary sources. Please feel free to confer with me on any aspect of the writing process: thesis honing, secondary reading, etc.

Schedule:
I. The Legend As We Know It
Week 1: Introduction; presentation sign-ups
Week 2: Malory on Uther and the coming of Arthur, Le Morte Darthur , 3-74; Lancelot, 95-119, 281-303; Malory on the Quest, 310-320; 329-345; 388-402
Week 3: Malory on Lancelot and Guenivere, 403-67; Arthur's Death, 468-527

II. The Historical Arthur and the Development of the Legend (6th -12th c)
Week 4: Romance of Arthur chs. 1-3 on Roman and Welsh traditions, Culhwch and Olwen; ch. 4 on Geoffrey of Monmouth; Marie de France, Prologue, Lanval (coursepack). Secondary: Andreas Capellanus, Art of Courtly Love from webpage
Week 5: Chretien de Troyes, Lancelot (in Arthurian Romances), pp. 185-280.
Week 6: Chretien de Troyes, Perceval (in Arthurian Romances), pp. 374-460.
Week 7: Lancelot-Grail Reader on the history of the Holy Grail and Merlin, 4-92; on Lancelot, 94-197
Week 8: Lancelot-Grail Reader on Lancelot, 197-304; on the grail quest and Arthur's death, 306-401.

III: Romance and Heroes
Week 9: Chretien de Troyes, Erec and Enide (in Arthurian Romances), pp.1-90
Week 10: Malory, “Sir Gareth of Orkney,” in Le Morte Darthur 120-168; Tristan legend from fragments. Read all three texts in The Romance of Arthur to get complete story from beginning to end: Béroul, Romance of Tristan, Marie de France, Chievrefueil, Thomas of Britain, Tristan
Week 11: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
Week 12: Chretien de Troyes, Yvain (in Arthurian Romances); “The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell” (Romance of Arthur)

IV: Revivals and Renewals (19th and 20th centuries)
Week 13: Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
Week 14: Steinbeck, The Acts of King Arthur and His Knights
Week 15: Calvino, The Nonexistent Knight




Reviewing Scholarly Works:

This assignment models the kind of writing typically undertaken by scholars reviewing academic works in their area of expertise. Normally you would write a review of an entire book; our task is merely to review a single provocative or suggestive paperBone that adds something to our understanding of the literature at hand.

To write a critique of an academic paper, you should begin by gaining a thorough understanding of it. Be sure that you understand what the author=s thesis isBthat is, why the analysis was undertakenBas well as how s/he came to that conclusion, and what its implications are. In general, your entire review should be approximately two typed double-spaced pages (book reviews tend to be 8-10 pages). To write your critique, use the following guidelines.

1) Summary:

Begin with a paragraph summarizing the thesis and methodology contained in the paper. What does the author argue? How is the argument provedBby analyzing specific texts or authors? What kind of analysis is undertakenBpsychological, rhetorical, philological? Be careful to rephrase the information in your own words. Sometimes it is useful to put the paper away while you are writing this section, so as to avoid inadvertently plagiarizing it.

2) Critique:

In the body of your critique, describe the main strengths and weaknesses of the paper.

Strengths: What part of the analysis do you feel was performed well? Why? What are the benefits of the author=s thesis? What conclusions are the most solid?

Weaknesses: Was the proof of the thesis substantial enough to justify the conclusions? Did the author test his or her own thesis against the other scholarship in the field? Would it have been better to look at additional materials before the paper was published? What alternative interpretations have not been suggested?

3) Final Overview:

In a sentence or two, summarize the information that can be validly taken from this paper. Describe how it has (or has not) advanced our understanding of the topic. Describe the outstanding questions suggested by the results of this paper (that is, what further research on the topic might be undertaken?).