The Fall of Arthur [Hardcover]

With the publication of The Fall of Arthur one of J.R.R. Tolkien's most obscure works, mentioned briefly in a letter he wrote in the 1950s and referred to in a couple of paragraphs in Humphrey Carpenter's biography, at last sees the light of day. The Fall of Arthur is a fragment of a poem Tolkien apparently wrote in the early 1930s, according to Christopher Tolkien's excellent Foreword. At that time Tolkien had already been working for many years on the tales and poems which eventually became part of his best known legendarium dealing with Arda. Interconnected with and simultaneous to those tales was Tolkien's ongoing love of Norse and Anglo-Saxon poetry.

Tolkien's poem makes up only about 40 pages of this book of over 200 pages. The rest, all written by Christopher Tolkien, consists of notes clarifying some terms and place names, a lengthy essay "The Poem in Arthurian Tradition," an excellent study of "The Unwritten Poem" which connects The Fall of Arthur with elements from The Silmarillion, The Lost Road, and The Book of Lost Tales, another essay on "The Evolution of the Poem" in which Christopher analyzes the several manuscripts and fragments of The Fall of Arthur, and an invaluable Appendix on "Old English Verse." All of this material will provide grist for many hours of deep and rewarding study. I've only begun to scratch the surface but I've already found so much that excites me with new insights into both Middle-earth and Camelot.

Most people who buy and read The Fall of Arthur will do so because they want to read more of J.R.R. Tolkien's own poetry, and even though this is only a fragment it is still magical. The poem begins with Arthur and Gawain going to war against Mordred in the East. The time is the fifth century, when Rome had retreated from Britain and the Anglo-Saxon invasions were beginning. The strong alliterative verse ("foes before them, flames behind them,") makes for beautiful, stirring, reading and is reminiscent of much of the poetry found in The Lord of the Rings and The Lays of Beleriand. It also seems to require being read aloud, or rather declaimed, preferably in a mead-hall!

While it is certainly cause for regret that Tolkien never found time to finish The Fall of Arthur, Christopher makes clear in "The Unwritten Poem" that elements from this unfinished work found expression elsewhere, so that Avalon eventually became Tol Eressea, for example. Perhaps the most valuable gift this publication of The Fall of Arthur can give us is this glimpse into Tolkien's creative imagination. Arthur, Gawain, Guinever, and Lancelot at first glance appear to have little in common with Earendil, or Beren and Luthien, or certainly Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, but as we read this poem and the accompanying material we can recognize anew and be thankful for their common source.

Readers who have an interest in Arthurian literature should find this interesting for its exposition of Tolkien's source choices. Those who are only interested in Middle Earth, may have trouble associating this book with the Tolkien they know. Christopher provides some help in bridging the gap. Those who are expecting a full-fledged Arthurian experience will be disappointed.

Most of the English speaking world knows of Arthur through Sir Thomas Mallory's 15th century version of the stories. With few exceptions, what appears in the popular media is based on Mallory. The exceptions generally ignore the vast earlier base of Arthurian literature, borrow a few names and incidents, and invent new relationships between the characters and create new narrative. The film King Arthur (2004) is a good example of this.

Tolkien made a conscious choice to focus on the most "English" aspects of the legends.

Arthurian literature before the 12th century would fit on part of one page. Geoffrey of Monmouth sparked interest in the Arthurian stories, starting around 1150, when Arthur was included in his History of the Kings of Britain. Monmouth gave us about 33 pages of Arthurian "history". This was followed by an avalanche of writing in French and German that lasted 100 years, until around 1250. The English versions of the stories first appeared 100 years later, in 1350. One of these was the West Midlands Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, translated by Tolkien and Gordon in 1925 while they were professors at Leeds. The other was the Stanzaic Morte D'Arthure. Gawain and the Stanzaic were used as sources for the Alliterative Morte D'Arthure around 1400. The Stanzaic and Alliterative were sources for Mallory. Gawain is borrowed from Briciu's Feast, an episode in Irish mythology, and adapted to the Arthurian legends.

The importance of this is that Tolkien took the most direct "English" path to Monmouth when choosing his sources. As Christopher states in the comments accompanying the poem, Tolkien used the vein starting with Monmouth, then to the Alliterative, finally to Mallory. This is as close as he could get to an "English" version. Monmouth was born in England, of Breton parents. Mallory was also influenced somewhat by continental versions of Chretien a Troyes and the Post Vulgate, but Tolkien seems to have expanded on Mallory's choice to ignore important aspects of the post-Monmouth continental versions, like the role of Lancelot. He seems to have been interested in purging the continental influences not already present in Monmouth.

It may surprise some that Tolkien, a scholar of language and mythology, once wrote (1951) that England "had no stories of its own..., not of the quality I sought". In the same paragraph he notes the Arthurian legends are "imperfectly naturalized, associated with Britain, but not with English". The Lord of the Rings and its accompanying literature were his attempt to create a mythology for England. It was published starting in 1954.

Tolkien's first attempt to write his own mythology started in 1914. A 28 page "Sketch of the Mythology" was written in 1927. Tolkien started The Fall of Arthur sometime before 1933 and it was abandoned by 1934. He never returned to it. In 1937, he submitted an early version of what became the Silmarillion to the publisher of The Hobbit. The timing of The Fall of Arthur seems to indicate a fleeting hope that he could convert Arthurian literature into a myth for England. However, it is impossible to ignore the many ties this body of literature has to the continent, especially France. Connections to the continent even appear in his brief start, which includes Frisians, and for which the bulk of the text is concerned with Arthur's trip to the continent, leaving Mordred in charge, and Arthur's return from France. Lancelot is French. Many stories in the wider body of the French and German stories are centered on what is now France, especially Brittany. Echoes of this even appear in The Lord of the Rings. "Rohan", for example is a place in Brittany where the plateau meets the rougher ground of Brittany. "Mirkwood Forest" seems to be patterned after the Forest of Broceliande, in Brittany, which is connected to many Arthurian legends, especially those of Merlin, Palamedes, and others.

If the story had been completed, it would attract a larger audience. As it is, it is rather specialized. Those of us in that audience, are very grateful for it.

Christopher Tolkien usually does a pretty good job of presenting his father's abandoned and unfinished work to mainstream audiences. "The Silmarillion" is, after all, the most loved book of the Tolkien fandom, and other more recent publishings (Such as, "The Children of Hurin "and several other entries previous to that) have been entertaining reads in their own right, though sometimes dense and rendundant. Even "The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun", while sparse on original content, held some interest for mainstream readers, particularly those interested in mythology. But, who exactly is the target audience for this most recent work? Asking casual fantasy readers or simple Tolkien enthusiasts to fork over a few hours wages for a few unfinished lines of poetry (like, 20 generously-spaced pages worth?) about King Arthur followed by heaps of notes is a bit much, even for Tolkien's biggest fans. And while "Sigurd" at least boasted relative completeness, "King Arthur" is not a complete story, and is not even the beginning or ending of a complete story.

I really hate giving a Tolkien work a poor review, but the problem is that this work should have never been released. It has the makings of a decent scholarly article, but to label it like any other work, slap a $25 price tag onto it, and place it in the fantasy section next to Lord of the Rings and Wheel of Time is nothing short of a cashgrab. It is becoming more than obvious that there are only scraps left buried in Tolkien's writing desk, and that they're being marketted as whole works and priced at a premium is, frankly, a little bit insulting.