On the shoulders of giants....

In the Preface to A History of Arthurian Scholarship (D.S. Brewer, 2006), Norris Lacy notes that “with each passing year, the major contributions of the past appear more remote, and we risk losing sight of previous trends and forgetting the substantial achievements that, however outdated by current standards, permitted or in many  cases generated subsequent scholarly efforts.”  It is this debt that this blog and this research seeks, at least in a very small part, to acknowledge:  looking at both the scholarly and the publishing histories of key Arthurian texts and criticism, and highlighting the part each side played in progressing the knowledge and understanding of this literary and cultural legend.

Last week I visited the archives of Oxford University Press and was granted access to files pertaining to Eugène Vinaver’s edition of Malory.  This cache of papers has yielded more than I could have hoped for in terms of clear demonstration of the involvement Vinaver’s editors at the Press had on his 3 volume Works, in all 3 editions.  The papers reveal the energy, scholarly, practical and diplomatic, employed to bring the Works to print, and the network of connections running through the main scholarly editor – publishing editor relationship.  I hope to be able to write up the findings in the coming months, and to post pieces on this blog.   

All comments are welcome and encouraged:  my own experience of Arthurian scholarship to date has been a hugely positive one, with the International Arthurian Society providing what has become a deeply appreciated academic ‘home’.  The “giants” that Norris Lacy describes in the Preface are, in Arthurian scholarship, part of its own compelling story:  and can be found in both academic and publishing contexts. 

So, to start with, my next post will be the transcription of the letter Vinaver wrote to his editor of the time, Kenneth Sisam, after he had visited Winchester to view the newly discovered Malory manuscript for the first time.  This letter expresses his disappointment -- his extreme disappointment! – at only being allowed to view the manuscript through the glass case it had been put in.  Sisam’s part in helping to smooth the way for the manuscript to be used more fully will, I hope, follow in future posts.