The Pleasures of Arthur

9^ARTHURIANA response? How, moreover, do different national literatures relate and relate to the Arthutian legend? My remarks are strikingly relevant to English medieval studies but may productively be resisted and /or interrogated by the difference between Continental andAnglo-American medievalisms orwithin British and North American medieval studies. Thus, the question of the divide and these potentially divisive questions. How does 'Arthurian' fare within and against other medievalist work? More pressingly in terms ofour meeting and this panel, what is the status ofour 'Discussion Group' in relation to the standing linguistic and temporal MLA 'Divisions.' Within English (both British and North American) the division between 'medievalist' and 'Arthurian' is a fairly stark one. The Arthurian operates under a cloak ofinvisibility to non-Arthurian medievalists. Rarely do the sub-specialists meet. In spite of these general disciplinary conditions, they have met today. To adumbrate and address the kinds of issues introduced here, seven speakers from differing linguistic and nationalist literary fields provide alternatingviews from the trenches to initiate a conversation about the 'cloak ofinvisibility' Arthurian studies wears (but rarely wields) and how, like Harry Potter's own cloak, it may allow for a kind ofaccess and information—particularly to popular interest and sustainability —otherwise impossible. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN NOTES ? Louise Aranye Fradenburg, 'Simply Marvelous,' Studies in theAge ofChaucer z6 (2004): 1-27. 2 Ellis Peters writes the Brother Cadfael series; P.C. Doherty writes the continued Canterbury tales (for instance, An Ancient Evil, New York: St. Martins, 1995); see also the Hugh Corbett series, CL. Grace's Kathryn Swinbrooke mysteries, and Margaret Frazer's Sister Frevisse Medieval Mysteries. 3 Philippa Gregory, The Other Boleyn Girl (London: Harper Collins, zooi). 4 Adapting the Arthurian Legendfor Children: Essays on Arthurian Juvenilia, ed. Barbara Tepa Lupack (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). 5 Exemplary here is the work of Fradenburg, particularly 'Be Not Far From Me': Psychoanalysis, Medieval Studies and the Subject of Religion' Exemplaria 7 (1995): 41-54. The Pleasures of Arthur PATRICIA CLARE INGHAM The pleasures we take in King Arthur—and the popularity ofliterary renditions ofArthurian traditions—are as visible as they ever were. And yet, the fact that Arthurian texts delight us, whether or not they offeredifyingwisdom, rhe fact, in other words, thatArthur's pleasures and our pleasures in Arthur remain on regular display has sometimes seemed to raise problems for those working in the field.1 One need only recall the massive quantities ofink spilled over the Wife ofBath'sArthurian tale THE ROUND TABLE97 as 'wish fulfillment,' the condescension read into Chaucer's pairing oftale with teller, to hint at scholarly discomfort with the enjoyment ofArthurian material. Ofcourse, there is a long medieval tradition, dating back at least to William ofMalmesbury, of discomfort with the overweening pleasures expressed by Arthur's devotees, and ofthe 'trifles' and 'ravings' produced about him. Passionately convinced ofArthur's worth as historical figure, Malmesbury nonetheless frets over the misguided, mad, undisciplined manner in which he is remembered. Arthur is 'not to be dreamed in false myths,' nor 'raved' about in 'trifles,' but 'proclaimed in truthful histories.'1 Malmesbury's particular gripe is, ofcourse, with the Welsh Britons; his critique has its own material history, one that I have discussed elsewhere and is outside the limits ofmy topic here. Yet I taise it so as to stress the ways in which the spectet ofmad or trifling pleasures associated with Arthur have long been the focus for anxiety about the propriety, the righteousness, or the moderation ofour responses to stories about him. This is, ofcourse, both the blessing and the curse ofArthurian Studies. I will outline briefly what I take to be the current stakes in this longstanding anxiety, and how it might help to explain the production of'invisibilities' that are the subject of our current conversation. One problem ofcourse has ofcourse to do with the capacious quality ofArthurian material, a tradition that is varied, diffuse, and controversial. On the one hand, the diversity of the tradition puts special pressure on questions ofaudience and scenes ofreading; on the other, some uses ofthings Arthurian continue to be controversial, and are regularly, ifat times rightly, critiqued as ideologically suspect. While nearly everyArthurian text has its own...