A list of tough knights

[Jennifer Blaustein]

The only way to really judge who was the toughest knight is in comparison to
Sir Launcelot, who seems to be used for comparison in every battle.

Sir Tristram: I would judge him as the toughest of all knights, even tougher
than Sir Launcelot. He battled Launcelot to a draw, sure, but his feats in
battle seemed greater and more glorious than anything Sir Launcelot did. Let
us also remember that he won the prize every day he was in the tournament
that included Launcelot.

Sir Launcelot: No need to explain him, he was a good knight even though he
was so boring. I always wondered why everybody knows him while Tristram
remains unknown to the general public. I always liked Tristram much better.

Sir Lamerok: Always described as the third greatest knight. He seems to hang
around wells waiting for people to show up. I am pretty sure he was unhorsed
by Tristram.

Sir Palomides: Why is this guy always called one of the greatest knights??
He gets unhorsed all the time, and the only time he wins is when he
surprises somebody, fights somebody who is as of yet not fresh, or unhorses
Le Cote Male Taille for no apparent reason.

Sir Bryce(?): I can't remember his name, the guy who tried to make King Mark
pay tribute and Tristram defeated him and killed him. Tristram said he was
the toughest knight he fought other than Launcelot. That's a big endorsement
coming from the big man.

Sir Alexander: He is given great street cred even though he never had to
fight any of the big names. Some of the people who he defeated mistook him
for Tristram or Launcelot, but that seemed to be something everybody woud
say when they were beaten.... "Man, that must have been either tristram or
launcelot to defeat me." It's like the ultimate cop out.



Am I missing anybody?

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Jennifer Blaustein
Sir Launcelot: No need to explain him, he was a good knight even though he
was so boring. I always wondered why everybody knows him while Tristram
remains unknown to the general public. I always liked Tristram much better.

Because he's part of the King Arthur story, which Tristram really isn't.

[Lurk McBurk]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Jennifer Blaustein
Sir Launcelot: No need to explain him, he was a good knight even though
he was so boring. I always wondered why everybody knows him while
Tristram remains unknown to the general public. I always liked Tristram
much better.

Because he's part of the King Arthur story, which Tristram really isn't.
--

But Tristram's story is so much more fascinating than Arthur or Lancelot.

[PAUL GADZIKOWSKI]

Lurk McBurk <***@lurk.lurk> wrote:
: But Tristram's story is so much more fascinating than Arthur or Lancelot.

Nah - Tristram's story is the same as Lancelot's, if Arthur were a bounder
instead of a great man (or, as some would have it, a fool).


Paul Gadzikowski, ***@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/new.htm Fanfiction stories and cartoons.

"My whole family was murdered by victims."

[randy cartwright]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Jennifer Blaustein
Sir Launcelot: No need to explain him, he was a good knight even though
he was so boring. I always wondered why everybody knows him while
Tristram remains unknown to the general public. I always liked Tristram
much better.

Because he's part of the King Arthur story, which Tristram really isn't.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

Well, Tristram was part of the original Welsh chronicle, while AFAIK
Lancelot/Launcelot was added as part of the French troubadour expansion of
the Arthur legend.

Personally Tristram is my favorite. Much more versatile--the best huntsman,
the best musician, and (depending on the source) nearly as good to better
than Launcelot in battle.

[xargon]

Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

Post by Jennifer Blaustein
The only way to really judge who was the toughest knight is in comparison
to Sir Launcelot, who seems to be used for comparison in every battle.
Sir Tristram: I would judge him as the toughest of all knights, even
tougher than Sir Launcelot. He battled Launcelot to a draw, sure, but his
feats in battle seemed greater and more glorious than anything Sir
Launcelot did. Let us also remember that he won the prize every day he was
in the tournament that included Launcelot.
Sir Launcelot: No need to explain him, he was a good knight even though he
was so boring. I always wondered why everybody knows him while Tristram
remains unknown to the general public. I always liked Tristram much better.
Sir Lamerok: Always described as the third greatest knight. He seems to
hang around wells waiting for people to show up. I am pretty sure he was
unhorsed by Tristram.
Sir Palomides: Why is this guy always called one of the greatest
knights?? He gets unhorsed all the time, and the only time he wins is when
he surprises somebody, fights somebody who is as of yet not fresh, or
unhorses Le Cote Male Taille for no apparent reason.
Sir Bryce(?): I can't remember his name, the guy who tried to make King
Mark pay tribute and Tristram defeated him and killed him. Tristram said
he was the toughest knight he fought other than Launcelot. That's a big
endorsement coming from the big man.
Sir Alexander: He is given great street cred even though he never had to
fight any of the big names. Some of the people who he defeated mistook him
for Tristram or Launcelot, but that seemed to be something everybody woud
say when they were beaten.... "Man, that must have been either tristram or
launcelot to defeat me." It's like the ultimate cop out.
Am I missing anybody?

[Lurk McBurk]

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of homosexuality,
as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have excluded him from the
grail quest.

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of homosexuality,
as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have excluded him from the
grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no such
thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate, Malory...), the
above paragraph is perilously close to being outright nonsense.

[PAUL GADZIKOWSKI]

John W. Kennedy <***@attglobal.net> wrote:
: Lurk McBurk wrote:
:> I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of homosexuality,
:> as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have excluded him from the
:> grail quest.
:
: Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no such
: thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate, Malory...), the
: above paragraph is perilously close to being outright nonsense.

When the subject is a fictional person (rather than necesarily one of the
works he appears in), can anything said about him be wrong?


Paul Gadzikowski, ***@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/new.htm Fanfiction stories and cartoons.

"My whole family was murdered by victims."

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
:> I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of homosexuality,
:> as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have excluded him from the
:> grail quest.
: Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no such
: thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate, Malory...), the
: above paragraph is perilously close to being outright nonsense.
When the subject is a fictional person (rather than necesarily one of the
works he appears in), can anything said about him be wrong?

I didn't say it was wrong; I said it was "perilously close to beging
outright nonsense". Plenty of things are nonsense without being wrong.

[PAUL GADZIKOWSKI]

John W. Kennedy <***@attglobal.net> wrote:
: PAUL GADZIKOWSKI wrote:
:> When the subject is a fictional person (rather than necesarily one of the
:> works he appears in), can anything said about him be wrong?
:
: I didn't say it was wrong; I said it was "perilously close to beging
: outright nonsense". Plenty of things are nonsense without being wrong.

I stand corrected.


Paul Gadzikowski, ***@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/new.htm Fanfiction stories and cartoons.

You know, when you avoid something because it's popular, YOU'RE STILL
LETTING THE OTHER GUY PICK YOUR OPINION FOR YOU.

[Lurk McBurk]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have
excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no such
thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate, Malory...), the
above paragraph is perilously close to being outright nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will) lore, including
the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other miscellany from 10th century saxony
and cornwall. I am not saying that the words in those texts is law, I am
only suggesting that the rumor is there, leaving room for speculation.

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have
excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no such
thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate, Malory...), the
above paragraph is perilously close to being outright nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will) lore, including
the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other miscellany from 10th century saxony
and cornwall. I am not saying that the words in those texts is law, I am
only suggesting that the rumor is there, leaving room for speculation.

I am not aware of Sir Galahad appearing in any text earlier than the
Vulgate.

[Lurk McBurk]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have
excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no such
thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate, Malory...), the
above paragraph is perilously close to being outright nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will) lore,
including the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other miscellany from 10th
century saxony and cornwall. I am not saying that the words in those
texts is law, I am only suggesting that the rumor is there, leaving room
for speculation.

I am not aware of Sir Galahad appearing in any text earlier than the
Vulgate.

I just named one of the works so maybe you should do your homework.

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have
excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no such
thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate, Malory...), the
above paragraph is perilously close to being outright nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will) lore,
including the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other miscellany from 10th
century saxony and cornwall. I am not saying that the words in those
texts is law, I am only suggesting that the rumor is there, leaving room
for speculation.

I am not aware of Sir Galahad appearing in any text earlier than the
Vulgate.

I just named one of the works so maybe you should do your homework.

Unfortunately, that is made difficult by your therapist's adherence to
the rules about doctor-patient confidentiality.

Nevertheless, the next time you want to make up an historic source
document, you might want to do it in a more credible way that
attributing it to one of your own alternate personalities.

[Lurk McBurk]

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have
excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no
such thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate,
Malory...), the above paragraph is perilously close to being outright
nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will) lore,
including the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other miscellany from 10th
century saxony and cornwall. I am not saying that the words in those
texts is law, I am only suggesting that the rumor is there, leaving
room for speculation.

I am not aware of Sir Galahad appearing in any text earlier than the
Vulgate.

I just named one of the works so maybe you should do your homework.

Unfortunately, that is made difficult by your therapist's adherence to the
rules about doctor-patient confidentiality.
Nevertheless, the next time you want to make up an historic source
document, you might want to do it in a more credible way that attributing
it to one of your own alternate personalities.

Find then Mr. Big Shot, here is the source I "made up"

"How Sir Gallahad proffered Sir Fauntleroy a joust, and how he did freely
submit to Sir Fauntleroy's will"



Therewithal came Sir Gallahad horsed, and approacheth he slow to the trot,
and each man beholdeth other long time. Then at long last spake Sir
Fauntleroy and said, why cast thou thy wretched gaze in mine direction?



Sir Fauntleroy I know thee well, spake the knight, for long and far hast
traveled thine reputation in the field. Masculine knight, my name is Sir
Gallahad, who cometh by way of a merry land wherest I am wont to cavort
gaily with gentlemen after mine own kind.



And what kind be that, other than that of treachery? asketh Sir Fauntleroy,
concealing not his passing wroth born ever without sound reason, save that
he was greatly loathe to converse or to have fellowship with any man or
woman of this earth at any time, and enraged twice-over that this man boast
to dwell in a merry land.



Those kind that might seek a joust from a knight of thine quality and
repute, that is, if ye feel fresh in the spirit of brotherly contest.



Never do I yearn for anything brotherly, said Sir Fauntleroy, rather it is
my custom to serve a loathsome and merry knight such as thee to the earth
and do my darkest will upon him. Meseemeth ye wist not mine reputation, for
if so ye didst ye wouldst yield to me upon sight. Now dress thee for battle,
Sir.



And with that Sir Gallahad made ready and took up his spear, and each rode
eagerly toward other. But whenst their spears should meet, Sir Gallahad gave
an awk glance and feigned swoon to the ground and avoided his horse. Then
Sir Fauntleroy alighted of his horse and believed Sir Gallahad at a great
disadvantage. Yield unto me now Sir, said Fauntleroy, else before thou art
slain I shall maketh a battle bride of thee.



I yield not unto thee, sayeth Sir Gallahad, nay even though thou hast
wounded me sore, I should rather ye to have thine way and slay me than to be
disgraced by yielding unto you after but a single stroke.



I expect, said Sir Fauntleroy, you are certain soon to regret that choice.
And with that Sir Fauntleroy lashed with rope Sir Gallahad to a shepherd's
fence by the hands and feet, then loosed his belt and pleats and defiled him
in most lewd a manner. At that the victim groaned feverishly, but never a
woeful complaint did pass his lips as Sir Fauntleroy performed on him that
odious deed. And when at last the enormous knight delivered his vile seed
and withdrew, Sir Gallahad quickly and deftly shed his ligatures and was
immediately on his horse a-riding. Then striketh he Sir Fauntleroy's steed
so as to send it reeling away in the wood long out of reach.



Confounded am I, calleth Sir Fauntleroy to the departing knight, that
beseemeth me thou couldst have escaped mine stern rebuke at any time. Why
then didst thou suffer it?



Now halting briefly on his horse, Sir Gallahad blushed and turned to speak.
As to that, said he, I will say only that if ye enjoyed this encounter as
much as I, then perhaps ye should avail thyself of the land from whence I
dwell, wherest ye may cavort with gentlemen of the same nature, and may we
all serve of each other likewise as thou hath just served unto me most
graciously.



And with that Sir Gallahad rode off gleefully by his way, leaving Sir
Fauntleroy to ponder this mysterious exchange.

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have
excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no
such thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate,
Malory...), the above paragraph is perilously close to being outright
nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will) lore,
including the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other miscellany from 10th
century saxony and cornwall. I am not saying that the words in those
texts is law, I am only suggesting that the rumor is there, leaving
room for speculation.

I am not aware of Sir Galahad appearing in any text earlier than the
Vulgate.

I just named one of the works so maybe you should do your homework.

Unfortunately, that is made difficult by your therapist's adherence to the
rules about doctor-patient confidentiality.
Nevertheless, the next time you want to make up an historic source
document, you might want to do it in a more credible way that attributing
it to one of your own alternate personalities.

Find then Mr. Big Shot, here is the source I "made up"

<snip inept forgery>

It would be a little more believable if your "10th-century Saxon" -- or
is it "10th-century Cornish"? -- text were not both an obvious attempt
to imitate Malory, who was neither, and a poor job of it at that.

Take your meds.

[Lurk McBurk]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have
excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no
such thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate,
Malory...), the above paragraph is perilously close to being
outright nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will) lore,
including the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other miscellany from
10th century saxony and cornwall. I am not saying that the words in
those texts is law, I am only suggesting that the rumor is there,
leaving room for speculation.

I am not aware of Sir Galahad appearing in any text earlier than the
Vulgate.

I just named one of the works so maybe you should do your homework.

Unfortunately, that is made difficult by your therapist's adherence to
the rules about doctor-patient confidentiality.
Nevertheless, the next time you want to make up an historic source
document, you might want to do it in a more credible way that
attributing it to one of your own alternate personalities.

Find then Mr. Big Shot, here is the source I "made up"

<snip inept forgery>
It would be a little more believable if your "10th-century Saxon" -- or is
it "10th-century Cornish"? -- text were not both an obvious attempt to
imitate Malory, who was neither, and a poor job of it at that.
Take your meds.

I guess you never heard of a work being translated into modern English.

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would have
excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does no
such thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate,
Malory...), the above paragraph is perilously close to being
outright nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will) lore,
including the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other miscellany from
10th century saxony and cornwall. I am not saying that the words in
those texts is law, I am only suggesting that the rumor is there,
leaving room for speculation.

I am not aware of Sir Galahad appearing in any text earlier than the
Vulgate.

I just named one of the works so maybe you should do your homework.

Unfortunately, that is made difficult by your therapist's adherence to
the rules about doctor-patient confidentiality.
Nevertheless, the next time you want to make up an historic source
document, you might want to do it in a more credible way that
attributing it to one of your own alternate personalities.

Find then Mr. Big Shot, here is the source I "made up"

<snip inept forgery>
It would be a little more believable if your "10th-century Saxon" -- or is
it "10th-century Cornish"? -- text were not both an obvious attempt to
imitate Malory, who was neither, and a poor job of it at that.
Take your meds.

I guess you never heard of a work being translated into modern English.

Your alleged "translation" is not in any language that was ever spoken
on the face of the Earth; rather, it is a ridiculous attempt to imitate
15th-century English by someone who doesn't have the education to pull
it off, resembling nothing else so much as an amateur attempt at ripping
off "Thor" comics.

I suggest you read a biography of William Henry Ireland.

(Of course, even if it were competently done either in present-day
English /or/ 15th-century English, it would still betray itself as not
possessing a 10th-century original, either Cornish or Saxon, in a
thousand ways. No character in Arthur's court had a French name at that
stage in the development of the mythos, and the Old French language was
still emerging out of Vulgar Latin, making the form "Fauntleroy" quite
impossible. And there was not yet such a thing as literary vulgate prose
to begin with. And -- oh yes -- there are /no/ literary remains of
10th-century Cornish or 10th-century Saxon.)

[Lurk McBurk]

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would
have excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does
no such thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate,
Malory...), the above paragraph is perilously close to being
outright nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will) lore,
including the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other miscellany from
10th century saxony and cornwall. I am not saying that the words in
those texts is law, I am only suggesting that the rumor is there,
leaving room for speculation.

I am not aware of Sir Galahad appearing in any text earlier than the
Vulgate.

I just named one of the works so maybe you should do your homework.

Unfortunately, that is made difficult by your therapist's adherence to
the rules about doctor-patient confidentiality.
Nevertheless, the next time you want to make up an historic source
document, you might want to do it in a more credible way that
attributing it to one of your own alternate personalities.

Find then Mr. Big Shot, here is the source I "made up"

<snip inept forgery>
It would be a little more believable if your "10th-century Saxon" -- or
is it "10th-century Cornish"? -- text were not both an obvious attempt
to imitate Malory, who was neither, and a poor job of it at that.
Take your meds.

I guess you never heard of a work being translated into modern English.

Your alleged "translation" is not in any language that was ever spoken on
the face of the Earth; rather, it is a ridiculous attempt to imitate
15th-century English by someone who doesn't have the education to pull it
off, resembling nothing else so much as an amateur attempt at ripping off
"Thor" comics.
I suggest you read a biography of William Henry Ireland.
(Of course, even if it were competently done either in present-day English
/or/ 15th-century English, it would still betray itself as not possessing
a 10th-century original, either Cornish or Saxon, in a thousand ways. No
character in Arthur's court had a French name at that stage in the
development of the mythos, and the Old French language was still emerging
out of Vulgar Latin, making the form "Fauntleroy" quite impossible. And
there was not yet such a thing as literary vulgate prose to begin with.
And -- oh yes -- there are /no/ literary remains of 10th-century Cornish
or 10th-century Saxon.)
--

I think I smell a closet Vulgaphile

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would
have excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does
no such thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate,
Malory...), the above paragraph is perilously close to being
outright nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will) lore,
including the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other miscellany from
10th century saxony and cornwall. I am not saying that the words in
those texts is law, I am only suggesting that the rumor is there,
leaving room for speculation.

I am not aware of Sir Galahad appearing in any text earlier than the
Vulgate.

I just named one of the works so maybe you should do your homework.

Unfortunately, that is made difficult by your therapist's adherence to
the rules about doctor-patient confidentiality.
Nevertheless, the next time you want to make up an historic source
document, you might want to do it in a more credible way that
attributing it to one of your own alternate personalities.

Find then Mr. Big Shot, here is the source I "made up"

<snip inept forgery>
It would be a little more believable if your "10th-century Saxon" -- or
is it "10th-century Cornish"? -- text were not both an obvious attempt
to imitate Malory, who was neither, and a poor job of it at that.
Take your meds.

I guess you never heard of a work being translated into modern English.

Your alleged "translation" is not in any language that was ever spoken on
the face of the Earth; rather, it is a ridiculous attempt to imitate
15th-century English by someone who doesn't have the education to pull it
off, resembling nothing else so much as an amateur attempt at ripping off
"Thor" comics.
I suggest you read a biography of William Henry Ireland.
(Of course, even if it were competently done either in present-day English
/or/ 15th-century English, it would still betray itself as not possessing
a 10th-century original, either Cornish or Saxon, in a thousand ways. No
character in Arthur's court had a French name at that stage in the
development of the mythos, and the Old French language was still emerging
out of Vulgar Latin, making the form "Fauntleroy" quite impossible. And
there was not yet such a thing as literary vulgate prose to begin with.
And -- oh yes -- there are /no/ literary remains of 10th-century Cornish
or 10th-century Saxon.)
--

I think I smell a closet Vulgaphile

Quel barbarisme!

[Lurk McBurk]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Lurk McBurk

Post by xargon
Well, Sir Galahad was "tough" by virtue of his purity.

I have heard it said that Galahad engaged in the practice of
homosexuality, as a supplement to heterosexual sex that would
have excluded him from the grail quest.

Inasmuch as Galahad is a fictional character, who certainly does
no such thing in the main textual stream (Vulgate, Post-Vulgate,
Malory...), the above paragraph is perilously close to being
outright nonsense.

I also take into account the obscure (non canon if you will)
lore, including the sir fauntleroy chronicles and other
miscellany from 10th century saxony and cornwall. I am not saying
that the words in those texts is law, I am only suggesting that
the rumor is there, leaving room for speculation.

I am not aware of Sir Galahad appearing in any text earlier than
the Vulgate.

I just named one of the works so maybe you should do your homework.

Unfortunately, that is made difficult by your therapist's adherence
to the rules about doctor-patient confidentiality.
Nevertheless, the next time you want to make up an historic source
document, you might want to do it in a more credible way that
attributing it to one of your own alternate personalities.

Find then Mr. Big Shot, here is the source I "made up"

<snip inept forgery>
It would be a little more believable if your "10th-century Saxon" --
or is it "10th-century Cornish"? -- text were not both an obvious
attempt to imitate Malory, who was neither, and a poor job of it at
that.
Take your meds.

I guess you never heard of a work being translated into modern English.

Your alleged "translation" is not in any language that was ever spoken
on the face of the Earth; rather, it is a ridiculous attempt to imitate
15th-century English by someone who doesn't have the education to pull
it off, resembling nothing else so much as an amateur attempt at ripping
off "Thor" comics.
I suggest you read a biography of William Henry Ireland.
(Of course, even if it were competently done either in present-day
English /or/ 15th-century English, it would still betray itself as not
possessing a 10th-century original, either Cornish or Saxon, in a
thousand ways. No character in Arthur's court had a French name at that
stage in the development of the mythos, and the Old French language was
still emerging out of Vulgar Latin, making the form "Fauntleroy" quite
impossible. And there was not yet such a thing as literary vulgate prose
to begin with. And -- oh yes -- there are /no/ literary remains of
10th-century Cornish or 10th-century Saxon.)
--

I think I smell a closet Vulgaphile

Quel barbarisme!

Bless you