Guest Respondent

Dr. Ad Putter, Director Graduate Studies in English

University of Bristol

Bristol, England

The Undergraduate

English Journal

Department of English

Concordia University Texas

Vol. 6 No. 1 April 2010

THIS EDITION: THE EVOLUTION OF

THE LEGEND OF KING ARTHUR

We are honored to welcome Dr. Ad Putter

of the department of English at Bristol Uni-

versity in Bristol, England. Dr. Putter is a

professor of medieval literature, Arthurian

literature, and modern philosophy. He is

also professor of comparative literature

(English, Dutch, French and Latin texts).

He is the author of six books on medieval

and middle English literature, and has writ-

ten numerous book chapters and articles, a

dozen on the legend of King Arthur and the

personalities who peopled it. In November

of 2009, he was awarded a £357,000 grant

by England’s Arts and Humanities Research

Council (AHRC) for a project that will in-

vestigate the verse forms of Middle English

romances. His research project aims to re-

discover the lost worlds of sound in these

ancient texts through studying the aural

qualities – rhyme and rhythm – of the po-

etry. As part of the project, recorded read-

ings will be made of these romances in their

original text and metre. This will enable

modern readers to familiarize themselves

with forgotten conventions of rhyme and

rhythm. His 2003 article “King Arthur at

Oxbridge: Nicholas Cantelupe, Geoffrey of

Monmouth, and Cambridge’s Arthurian

Foundation Myth” was a resource text for

Concordia’s King Arthur class last fall. In

this edition, Professor Putter reviews senior

English major Courtney Knudsen’ s paper

from that class.

All material appearing in this edition is held under the copyrights of the Department of English at Concordia University Texas

To reproduce any information printed here, please contact the Department of English, Concordia University Texas

11400 Concordia University Drive Austin, Texas 78726 (512) 313-5419

or email claudia.teinert@concordia.edu

A Response to Courtney Knudsen’s “The Decline

and Fall of Arthur’s Kingdom”

The story of Lancelot‘s adulterous affair with Guinevere

and the subsequent fall of the Round Table is first found

in the Old French Mort Artu (c. 1190), but Anglophone

readers are more likely to know the legend from Sir Tho-

mas Malory‘s Le Morte D’Arthur. Courtney Knudsen

focuses on Malory and on two authors who were both

directly influenced by him: Alfred, Lord Tennyson and

T.W. White. Her essay shows in exemplary fashion how

much we can learn if we trace the evolution of the Arthu-

rian legend from medieval to modern times: comparing

different imaginative recreations of the same underlying

story allows us to discover what is original and distinctive

about some of our greatest writers.

It makes good sense to begin with Malory, for he is

the author who mediated the medieval legend to later

readers and writers. From our modern perspective, he

writes in ―antique English,‖ as Knudsen writes. However,

if we were able to transport ourselves back to the 1460s

when Malory was writing, we might have been struck,

rather, by its modernity, for Malory is one of the first

(continued page eight)

“The Decline and Fall of Arthur’s Kingdom”

by Courtney Knudsen Courtney Knudsen is a senior English major who will graduate May 2010 and enter the teach-

ing profession. She is currently interning as a copy editor for BookPros, a subdiary of MSB

Media.

page two The Undergraduate English Journal

The story of King Arthur has evolved and grown through the ages, beginning with a few sentences in which Ar-

thur is mentioned in passing, and growing to the multi-faceted and romantic tales that are well known and cher-

ished in the present time. As the story has developed throughout the ages, many authors have woven into their

stories their own theories about the fall of Arthur‘s kingdom and its causes. From the treachery of Mordred in Sir

Thomas Malory‘s Le Morte d’Arthur, to the sins of Guinevere in Alfred, Lord Tennyson‘s epic poem Idylls of the

King, to the many complicated tribulations found in T. H. White‘s The Once and Future King, each author pro-

vides his own unique reasons for the tragedy of Arthur. These many views add depth to the story, and contribute

to its status as a magnificent and perpetuating legend. Despite the many different versions of the decline and fall

of King Arthur‘s Round Table, there are several things common to each story which serve as the fundamental

catalysts for the destruction of Arthur‘s England.

In all three versions of the tale, Guinevere and Lancelot betray Arthur with their love affair. Mordred—

whether he is Arthur‘s son or nephew—exposes Lancelot and Guinevere‘s indiscretions, usurps the throne while

Arthur is away from Britain battling Lancelot, and attempts to marry the Queen. These facts for the most part

remain consistent throughout the legend‘s evolution, though Lancelot does not at first appear in the earlier texts.

However, the way in which each author portrays the smaller details, as well as the motivations and emotions that

make all characters behave the way they do, ensures that each new telling is unique from the one before.

Sir Thomas Malory‘s Le Morte D’Arthur is written in antiquated English, and though it is a narrative, it still

does not read like the novels most readers enjoy in the present time. Therefore, though passages from Le Morte

D’Arthur are moving—especially those detailing the decline and fall of Arthur‘s Round Table—they are less at-

tentive to the deeper thoughts and feelings of the characters affected. Malory makes sweeping comments about

the desire for revenge of one character upon another, or the great love or bitterness between two characters, not

complex explorations of motive.

Malory‘s text seems to lay all the blame upon Mordred‘s actions. Mordred, from the outset, is a shady char-

acter, and his earlier actions seem to indicate that he will be even more dangerous as the story progresses. In

Book X, Sir Palomides speaks of the manner of Sir Lamorak‘s death. Lamorak and the Orkney brothers—

Gawain, Gaheris, Agravaine, and Mordred—have had bad blood between them. The Orkney brothers kill

Lamorak‘s father, Sir Pellinore, and then Lamorak is caught in bed with Morgause, the mother of the Orkneys.

Lamorak, after a tournament, is ―set upon…in a privy place‖ by the Orkney faction, one of whom is Mordred.

They ―slew his horse…[and]fought with him for more than three hours, both before him and behind.‖ Mordred is

the one who ―gave [Lamorak] his death‘s wound behind him at his

back‖ (119).

Mordred is depicted here as a coward. By slaying Lamorak

from behind, rather than facing him head-on, as his brothers do, he

demonstrates a spineless attitude when battling a knight of prowess.

Later, when he attempts an overthrow of Britain, the reader recalls

this incident and makes the connection—to both his fellow knights

and his King, Mordred is a traitor.

In Book XXI, the fall of Arthur occurs rapidly. Arthur, in the

previous book, makes ―Mordred chief ruler of all England,‖ and

sails away ―to make war on Sir Launcelot‖ (494). In Chapter 1 of

Book XXI, Mordred again shows himself to be a traitor, this time on

a much larger scale. He forges letters ―as though that they came

from beyond the sea…and specified that King Arthur was slain in

battle with Sir Launcelot‖ (505). He then calls ―the lords together‖

(continued page three)

―Morte d‘Arthur‖

by John Mulcaster Carrick, 1862

The Undergraduate English Journal page three

The Undergraduate English Journal

Department of English

Concordia University Texas

Guest Respondent

Dr. Ad Putter

Department of English

Bristol University Bristol, England

General Editor

Claudia Teinert

Literature Editor

Amy Root

Associate Editors

Laura Drell, Caitlin Hanna, Teresa Kirchoff,

Courtney Knudsen, Faith Lynn, Sarah Meek,

Brittany Scheel

Contributors

Courtney Knudsen, Laura Drell,

Marissa Veldmann

Each edition of the UEJ features one or more outstanding

undergraduate papers from upper level English courses at

Concordia University Texas. A critical response from a

scholar in the field of the papers’ subject matter accompa-

nies the student essays. Additional content may include

reviews of art openings, lectures and stage productions

and films; student and faculty development and honors;

and current and upcoming events related to literature and

the arts.

(Knudsen, continued from page two)

and forces them to ―choose him King‖ (505). Mordred

also, in addition to seeking Arthur‘s throne, attempts to

take Guinevere as his wife, who cleverly outwits him and

locks herself in the Tower of London.

Though Malory portrays Mordred‘s wickedness

mostly through his actions and does not explore his

deeper motives and emotions, his dialogue does occasion-

ally reveal something of the evil inside Mordred. The

Bishop of Canterbury rebukes Mordred for his shameful

and wicked deeds, to which Mordred replies, ―‘Do thou

thy worst…wit thou well I shall defy thee,‖ then threatens

to ―strike off‖ the Bishop‘s head (506). As one of God‘s

representatives on Earth, the Bishop has a right and a duty

to reproach Mordred for his wrongdoings. Yet Mordred

defies the priest and in doing so, seems to defy God Him-

self.

As Mordred proceeds to make war on Arthur at the

exact moment that he lands at Dover, again the reader sees

the depth of his depravity. Mordred does not even

allow Arthur‘s knights to depart their boats and

do battle on land. He slaughters them as they

struggle to come ashore. On and on the battles

rage, until finally the armies of both Arthur and

Mordred are all obliterated, and Arthur and

Mordred fight to the death. Arthur finally slays

Mordred, but in the effort receives his own death

wound when Mordred smites ―his father…on the

side of the head, that the sword pierced the helmet

and the brain pan‖ (514). Though it costs him his

own life, Mordred kills his father and brings to a

halt all the good things that Arthur attempts to

bring about.

Malory, in exempting the details about the

inner workings of the characters in Arthur‘s tale,

has also omitted the causes of the fall of the king-

dom that Tennyson and White managed to por-

tray in their texts. Thus, Mordred is portrayed as

the key villain—the catalyst for the destruction of

Arthur‘s life work.

Alfred, Lord Tennyson, in Idylls of the King,

makes the fall of Arthur slightly more compli-

cated. Written in poetic form, it manages to con-

vey more of the emotions of the characters, which

contributes a great deal to determining the causes

of Arthur‘s kingdom‘s failure. In Tennyson‘s text,

specifically in the book entitled ―Guinevere,‖

(continued page five)

―Mordred‖

by Julek Heller, 1990

The Pendragon Line According to legend, when Constantine arrived in Britain he embarked on a

Roman strategy for civilizing the warring pagan inhabitants of the northern

isles. His sons Constans, Aurelius Ambrosius, and Utherpendragon would

each inherit the throne in their turn. All are murdered by ambitious enemies.

On the death of the middle brother Ambrosius, Geoffrey of Monmouth re-

cords that a dragon appeared across the night sky, pursuing and devouring a

second dragon (History of the Kings of Britain, 1136). These signs were

thought to sanctify the divine kingship of the Uther–and perhaps fore-

shadow the greater kingship of his son, Arthur Pendragon. Arthur marries

Guenevere and they remain childless, but an incestuous union between Ar-

thur and his half-sister Morgan le Fay produces the boy Mordred as legend

goes. He would mortally wound his father on the field of battle at Badon,

and so bring about the complete destruction of the noble court of Camelot.

Depicting the Tragic Hero

by Marissa Veldmann

Marissa Veldmann is a freshman English major at Concordia and undecided

about her career.

page four The Undergraduate English Journal

is notably different than that of the heroes in Greek

tragedies although similarities in the characters‘ initial

intentions can be seen, particularly in the tragic heroes

of Sophocles‘ Oedipus trilogy.

In Sylvan Barnet‘s translation of Oedipus The

King (2008), Oedipus is an extremely unfortunate and

misguided protagonist. He is quite literally a tragic

hero. At the start of the play, Thebes is being torn apart

by a horrible plague. With every intention of being a

great leader to his people, Oedipus declares: ―After a

painful search I found one cure: I acted at once. I sent

Creon, my wife‘s own brother, to Delphi – Apollo the

Prophet‘s oracle – to learn what I might do or say to

save our city‖ (1022). So determined is he to do what

he must for his people that Oedipus turns to the gods

for instruction. When Creon returns from Delphi and

with the answer as to why the gods are sickening the

city, Oedipus insists on being not in private, but rather

insists that Creon, ―Speak out, speak to all of us. I

grieve for these, my people, far more than I fear for my

own life‖ (1023). This kind of dedication and refusal

to secrecy shows Oedipus as a great, noble man with

strength as a King. His grievance for the torment of his

people being stronger than his fear for his own life is

comparable to the compassion and sympathy of King

Arthur.

Unknowingly, Oedipus soon eats his own words

when the details of his moira surface after being buried

(continued page ten)

A tragic/epic hero or protagonist is typically defined as

―a noble man or king who falls from grace through no

fault of his own.‖ Unfortunately, the tragic hero is a

character far more complex than this simple definition.

The one thing a tragic protagonist cannot be is com-

mon. He is always larger than life, a person of action

whose decisions determine the fate of others and seem

to shake the world itself. The hero of a tragedy is not

perfect, however. Aristotle says in Poetics that the best

type of tragic hero is "a person who is neither perfect

in virtue and justice, nor one who falls into misfortune

through vice and depravity, but rather, one who suc-

cumbs through some miscalculation.‖ We see that

King Arthur is such an epic hero because he and his

kingdom fall not because of his corruptness or per-

sonal flaw, but because he is quite literally, too good –

too compassionate, sympathetic, optimistic. From the

start, he puts the needs and wants of others before his

own. When Arthur‘s foster brother Kay pulls the

sword from the stone, Arthur does not speak up about

his stolen glory and does not receive his deserved

praise until Kay admits the truth. Once made King,

Arthur continues to lack the unflinching firmness re-

quired of leaders in that day. Furthermore, his knights

cannot live up to Arthur‘s chivalrous ideals which

eventually helps bring about the destruction of king,

knights, and kingdom. It is not a vice or a fault to be

compassionate and optimistic, but it is the miscalcula-

tion that causes Arthur‘s fall from grace. Arthur‘s fall

(Knudsen, continued from page three)

Tennyson seems to lay all the blame upon the head of

Guinevere. Here, Guinevere is not a character that the

reader is able to love very well. She is jealous and

childish, and treats Lancelot atrociously. For exam-

ple, when Lancelot brings her the ―costly gift, hard-

won and hardly won…the nine-years-fought-for dia-

monds,‖ Guinevere, for jealousy of Lancelot‘s tryst

with Elaine, ―flung [the diamonds], and down they

flash‘d, and smote the stream‖ (198-200). She is en-

raged because of the mistake Lancelot makes with

Elaine, and will not listen to his professions of love

for Guinevere, nor will she accept the diamonds as a

token of love from him. Rather than seeing that he is

desperately in love with her, she feels only jealousy

for the fact that Lancelot has been with another

woman.

After her affair has been revealed and Mordred

attempts to make her his bride, Queen Guinevere runs

away from Mordred to the ―holy house at Almes-

bury‖ (269). There she is only served by a novice

nun and lives in disguise, not telling the nuns her

name. Guinevere, already feeling quite guilty for her

actions, is forced to listen to the novice speak of ―the

good King and his wicked Queen‖ and call her

―disloyal wife,‖ and ―sinful Queen‖ (274-276). The

novice hints that Guinevere is to blame for the com-

ing fall of Arthur‘s kingdom when she speaks of the

bard‘s song that predicts that Arthur would ―find a

woman in her womanhood as great as he was in his

manhood…the twain together well might change the

world‖ but falters before he can finish the song (277).

This, the novice seems to suggest, means that such

things as the bard sings about will not come true, and

the bard cannot sing the falsehood. Therefore, Arthur

will not succeed in changing the world because of the

―evil work of Lancelot and the Queen‖ (277). One is

forced to acknowledge, as one reads the remarks of

the novice and the pained internal comments of

Queen Guinevere, that Guinevere deserves such harsh

admonitions for the childishness and selfishness of

her previous actions, and the consequences thereof.

Arthur‘s visit to the convent brings further harsh

words to Guinevere‘s ears. As she kneels before Ar-

thur, he pours out his heart, telling her every way in

which she has hurt him, and demonstrating to her his

own goodness by forgiving her and leaving some of

his own men ―to guard thee in the wild hour coming

on, lest by a hair of this low head be harm‘d‖ (280).

He tells her that she ―hast not made my life so sweet

to me, that I the King should greatly care to live; for

thou hast spoilt the purpose of my life‖ (281). Here it

seems that Arthur is reinforcing what the novice

spoke to Guinevere about—that Arthur was supposed

to change the world for the better, but because his

Queen failed in her duties to him, he was unable to

accomplish this feat.

Arthur also drives the guilt home when he tells

her that he was always loyal to her, following his own

command to his knights, of which one part was ―to

love one maiden only, cleave to her, and worship her

by years of noble deeds‖ (281). What is ironic is that

Arthur, the man Guinevere did not love, did this for

her, but Lancelot her lover was unable to do the same.

In his article ―The Female King: Tennyson‘s

Arthurian Apocalypse,‖ Elliot Gilbert claims that by

this very principle of cleaving to one woman, Tenny-

son reverses Arthur‘s role from masculine to femi-

nine, claiming Arthur seeks to ―found his new com-

munity‖ on ―the female ideal of passionlessness,‖ an

ideal which stems from the sexual repressions of

women which was so prevalent in the Victorian era at

the time Tennyson is writing (244). This seems al-

most a criticism of Arthur‘s attitude, and his love for

his ideals and his wife. The only passion that Arthur

seems to show is for the upholding of the principles

by which he rules his country. Tennyson, therefore,

by bestowing blame upon Guinevere and making Ar-

thur ―passionless,‖ gives an ―elaborate examination of

the advantages and dangers of sexual role rever-

sal‖ (Gilbert 233).

(continued page six)

―Guinevere Cloistered and Repentant‖

by Gustav Dore, 1867

The Undergraduate English Journal page five

(Knudsen, continued from page five)

T. H. White‘s The Once and Future King is also a

complicated work in which many character flaws, as-

pects of human nature, and rash actions on the part of

the characters contribute to the fall of Arthur‘s king-

dom. In his article ―T. H. White and the Legend of

King Arthur,‖ Francois Gallix observes that White‘s

―special contribution‖ to the Arthurian legend ―was to

give psychological depth to the numerous

characters that appear in this romance‖ (282). It is

due to this new dimension in White‘s text that the

reader can see the inevitable happening almost from

the very beginning—at the very least beginning with

the start of the second book, with Morgause‘s neglect

of her four sons and Arthur‘s confusion about how to

run his newly-acquired kingdom.

Though there are multiple things which contrib-

ute to the fall of Arthur‘s kingdom in T. H. White‘s

text, perhaps one of the most important things is the

question of identity and fulfillment, and the explora-

tion of what sort of things complete a person‘s identity.

Each of the key characters that contribute to the fall of

Camelot have previously been key to the story—

Arthur, Lancelot, Guinevere, Mordred, Gawaine, and

others. However, T. H. White‘s text goes much deeper

into the minds and hearts of these characters than

Malory and Tennyson have done before. Arthur be-

gins as a young boy, called ―The Wart‖ and is raised as

Sir Ector‘s foster son. No one knows who fathered

him. Arthur‘s childhood is idyllic. He is educated

by the wizard Merlyn and has plenty of time to play.

This contributes later to the softness and compassion

in his character. Adversely, Mordred is raised know-

ing that Arthur ―wanted to destroy Mordred‖ because

of his fear and shame (548). Gawaine and the Ork-

ney clan are barely raised by Morgause, always seek-

ing her approval and never getting her attention.

Lancelot, from the time he is a boy, ―thought that

there was something wrong with him‖ and ―was to

feel this gap‖ his entire life, despite being the most

beloved and skilled knight of Arthur‘s court (315).

All of these characters prove that their upbringing

contributes greatly to the development of their per-

sonality, morality, and the way in which they con-

duct themselves.

There are many places we see the identities of

these characters, forged at a very young age, come

out in the story. For instance, one of the most poign-

ant moments in the story is when Lancelot leaves the

castle in which he has been staying with Elaine.

Lancelot receives a message that there is ―a man

waiting on the other side of the moat‖ who refuses to

see anyone but Sir Lancelot (418). The unknown

rider turns out to be Uncle Dap, who has trained Lan-

celot from the time he was a little boy, and serves as

his squire once he achieves knighthood. Uncle Dap

stands across the moat with ―Lancelot‘s old

charger…and all his accustomed armour neatly

stowed on the saddle‖ (419). Upon seeing all of this

armor, Lancelot is reminded of who he is—he is a

warrior, meant for battle and joust—and Arthur‘s

premiere knight. When he takes his helm from Un-

cle Dap, he observes the decorations and ―knew at

once whose fingers had done the embroidery‖ (419).

When he smells the helm, ―immediately [Guinevere]

was there…the real Jenny…with every lash of her

eyelids and every pore of her skin and every articula-

tion of her smile‖ (420). Lancelot in this moment

realizes that he cannot stay with Elaine. He has been

denying his very self. So even if he must ride back

into sin with the Queen and war at Arthur‘s side, he

can no longer suppress his true self.

White portrays Mordred as a madman,

―misshapen, intelligent‖ and ―critical‖ (523). He is

described as a ―cold wisp of a man‖ and is blatantly

bitter that his father set him ―adrift in a boat as a

baby‖ in an attempt to kill him (517-519). This fact,

though it happened before he could have remem-

bered it, stays with him and embitters him for his

whole life. Mordred is conflicted because he is

―lovingly treated by the King-father whom his

mother had taught him to hate with all his

heart‖ (523). He is raised to loathe Arthur, and so

(continued page seven)

―Lancelot Meets King Arthur‖

by N. C. Wyeth, 1922

page six The Undergraduate English Journal

(Knudsen, continued from page six)

eventually accomplishes what Morgause desired but

could not achieve herself—the destruction of Arthur

and his Round Table.

Mordred, in addition to being indoctrinated by his

mother to hate Arthur, is motivated by his insane desire

for revenge. This desire for revenge seems to be a

genetic trait of the Orkney clan, for Gawaine is venge-

ful on anything ―against his family,‖ Agravaine pro-

tects his mother, and Gareth avenges the weak that are

suppressed by the strong (218). Mordred insists on

bringing the affair of Lancelot and Guinevere to Ar-

thur‘s attention as an accusation that cannot be ig-

nored. Though Gawaine attempts to talk him and Agra-

vaine out of this, he fails, and Mordred demands jus-

tice against the two. It is here that The End truly be-

gins in earnest. When Lancelot and Guinevere are

caught and the Queen is to be burned at the stake,

Mordred gives the order to light the fire with his ―pale

face…burning with enthusiasm‖ (578). Mordred has a

desire to see other people fall or suffer, and gets im-

mense pleasure out of it when it does happen.

Each character is equally well-rounded in White‘s

text, but the warrior inside Lancelot and the sadistic,

angry little boy inside Mordred, serve to illustrate best

the details which White provides his readers. These in-

depth explorations result in mixed and complications

and reactions from his readers. In other texts, the ac-

tions of both Lancelot and of Mordred are mostly

viewed as despicable. In this text, however, because of

the insight into their backgrounds and the personalities

that result, one cannot also help but pity them—or at

the very least understand why they behave the way

they do.

The failure of Arthur‘s kingdom in White‘s text,

therefore, seems to be the imperfection and flaws that

all humans possess. White explores these flaws—as

seen in the examples of Lancelot and Mordred—in

careful detail, beginning in the early stages of their life.

In this way, White makes the characters sympathetic to

his readers, and allows one to almost believe that they

could be real people rather than figures out of a great

legend.

Many people do not realize the depth of tragedy

and loss found in the legend of King Arthur, but a

more in depth exploration of the texts chronicling his

life show that the tale is, indeed, a tragedy. The fall of

Arthur is equally—if not more—important to the leg-

end than the tales of his brave knights and noble deeds,

and to the lessons that can be drawn from it. With

each new retelling of the tale—starting with Malory,

then Tennyson, and finally White—the authors add

new dimensions to the characters and reveal more

about the myriad possible reasons for the destruction of

one of the most well known societies in literature and

history.

Works Cited

Gallix, Francois. ―T. H. White and the Legend of

King Arthur: From Animal Fantasy to Political

Morality.‖ King Arthur: A Casebook. Edward

Donald Kennedy, ed. Routledge: New York,

2002. 282.

Gilbert, Elliot L. ―The Female King: Tennyson‘s Ar-

thurian Apocalypse.‖ King Arthur: A Casebook.

Edward Donald Kennedy, ed. Routledge: New

York, 2002. 233-244.

Lord Tennyson, Alfred. Idylls of the King. J. M. Gray,

ed. Penguin Books Ltd.: London, England, 1983.

198-281.

Malory, Sir Thomas. Le Morte D’Arthur. Vol. 2.

Penguin Books Ltd.: Middlesex, England, 1969.

119-514.

White, T. H. The Once and Future King. Penguin

Putnam: New York, 1939.

The Undergraduate English Journal page seven

―Honour Brought the King Out Upon the Battlements‖

by Dora Curtis, 1905

from Stories of King Arthur and the Round Table

page eight The Undergraduate English Journal

(Putter, continued from page one)

English writers to compose chivalric narrative in

prose. With just one exception (the Prose Merlin), all

earlier Arthurian romances in English were in verse.

Yet our modern perspective need not be a hindrance

when it comes to reading Malory – as long as we are

willing to leave some of our modern preconceptions

behind. In fact it usefully reveals how unusual

Malory is when he refuses to blame Arthur‘s fall on

Lancelot‘s love affair. As heirs to the modern novel,

where adultery is so often the source of all trouble,

modern readers too easily assume that Malory also

thought that, and it therefore takes an unprejudiced

reader to appreciate that Malory does not consider

Lancelot and Guinevere to be the guilty party. At the

beginning of his last book, Malory announces the

―grete angur and unhappe that stynted nat tylle the

flour of chivalry of alle the worlde was destroyed and

slayne‖; but all that, he continues, ―was longe upon

[= due to] two unhappy knyghtis which were named

sir Aggravayne and sir Mordred.‖ Mordred, in par-

ticular, has a history of treason and backstabbing (in

both a literal and figurative sense) in Malory, but

Guinevere comes off well. True, there are moments

when she treats Lancelot unkindly, but I am glad

Knudsen does not find fault with her for that reason.

The point is that Malory was impressed by, and

wanted to impress us with, the unwaveringness of

Lancelot‘s love – and so he naturally imagined his

great hero in situations where lovers less steadfast

than Lancelot might have felt tempted to give up on

their lady. And of course Guinevere‘s resolve, too, is

tested, especially when Mordred usurps the kingdom

and tries to force her into marrying him. Then as to-

day, London was the place for shopping, and

Guinevere shrewdly tells Mordred she must go to

London to buy her wedding outfit. Once there, she

locks herself into the Tower of London where even

Mordred and his allies cannot get at her. As Knudsen

puts it, ―she cleverly outwits Mordred,‖ and she dies

(as Malory insists) a ―true lover.‖

From Malory, Knudsen moves on to Tennyson,

who happens to be the poet I enjoy teaching most in

my Arthurian classes. In the Introduction to the re-

cent Cambridge Companion to the Arthurian Legend,

I claimed that it ―is a humbling experience to read

Tennyson‘s Idylls alongside Malory, and to witness

there the poet‘s persuasive realisation of imaginative

possibilities – lyrical beauty, psychological drama,

thematic cohesion – that are only glimpsed in

Malory. But one also notices prejudice.‖ I am re-

lieved that Knudsen‘s account of Tennyson‘s Lance-

lot and Elaine and Guinevere has not forced me to

change my mind. Tennyson‘s prejudice in these two

(continued page nine)

The fox had no face the loggermen said

they rolled a barrelful of something muffled

down the back of a mountain

a woman moved so fast I couldn't see

what white thing she tucked between her legs

there were spiders hatching inside her mattress

we said that's not what's hatching

she opened her mouth to call her father inside

a small pile of salt fell out

she was wearing a nightdress the color of pistachios

I wanted to throw her over my shoulder

she was too heavy and my arms were marmalade

she pointed to the boulder under the creek

right where the rope swing dropped off

it looked like the skull bone of Paul Bunyan's blue ox

a sudden sickness of red algae bloomed to the surface

the current licked itself clean in a second

- by Karyna McGlynn English Adjunct Concordia University Texas

from her book of poetry I Have to Go Back to 1994

and Kill a Girl (Sarabande Books, 2009)

Faculty News

Dr. Clyde Duder attended the Lilly Conference in

fall 2009. The conference theme was ―Millennial

Learning: Teaching in the 21st Century.‖

Professor Amy Root received her doctorate in

English in January 2010 from The University of

Texas at Austin. Her unique dissertation focuses

on the creation of the Alfred A. Knopf Publishing

Company and will be published in book form

soon. Congratulations for these achievements!

Dr. Susan Stayton will attend the 6th Biennial

Toni Morrison Society Conference in Paris, France

November 4-7 2010. The conference title is ―Toni

Morrison and Circuits of the Imagination.‖ We

look forward to her review in the fall journal.

The Undergraduate English Journal page nine

(Putter, continued from page eight)

Idylls is with the ‗fallen woman‘, incarnated in

Queen Guinevere. Her occasional lack of trust in

Lancelot which we see in Malory‘s Morte makes

way in Tennyson for childish petulance and jealousy,

as when she ungratefully flings the hard-won dia-

monds given to her by Lancelot out the window.

Malory‘s Guinevere never loses her dignity in this

way; but, of course, in Tennyson‘s view, her dignity

is compromised from the moment she takes Lancelot

as her lover. But since we have all our prejudices, we

should count ourselves lucky that Tennyson‘s are

those of a brilliant poet. For example, one of the rea-

sons why Guinevere comes across as a flawed

woman in both these Idylls is that Tennyson deliber-

ately paired her with idealized figures of innocent

femininity: with the virginal Elaine in Lancelot and

Elaine and the guileless novice in Guinevere. Notice

also how brilliantly Tennyson sees the diamonds,

with his mind‘s eye, as they strike the water of the

castle moat, their mirage in the water mirrored in his

verbal repetition: ―… and down they flash‘d, and

smote the stream. / Then from the smitten surface

flash‘d, as it were, / Diamonds to meet them, and

they past away‖ (Lancelot and Elaine, 1227-9). And

finally, notice how this shattering end to Lancelot

and Elaine recalls and, as it were, fulfils a moment at

the beginning of the Idyll, where Elaine fondly

dreams that the diamonds are given to her but then

slip from her fingers, ―and fell into the some pool or

stream / The castle-well, belike‖ (213-4). It is only in

the finest poetry that apparent approximations (―the

castle-well belike‖) turn out to be so precise.

T. H. White secured his place in Arthurian liter-

ary history with The Sword in the Stone, which he

subsequently reprinted in his Arthurian The Once

and Future King (1958). Knudsen quotes Francois

Gallix‘s observation that White‘s ―special contribu-

tion‖ to the Arthurian legend ―was to give psychologi-

cal depth to the numerous characters that appear in this

romance.‖ Arguably, ―psychological depth‖ can already

be found in Tennyson (Knudsen notices, for instance,

the ―pained internal comments‖ of his Guinevere), but

T. H. White certainly offers a distinctive version of

psychological depth by suggesting that our adult identi-

ties are determined by our earliest childhood experi-

ences. Here it is revealing to compare the episodes in

Malory and T. H. White where Mordred (then a help-

less baby) is set adrift in boat by King Arthur. In

Malory there is no sign that this episode has any bear-

ing on his later betrayal of King Arthur. In T. H. White,

on the other hand, Mordred remembers it with bitter-

ness: whether his memory of the event is real or recon-

stituted, it helps to make him the traitor he is. It may be

relevant to recall that T. H. White spent most of his

working life teaching children at school: his choices in

his professional career seem to have been inspired by

the same conviction that Knudsen notices in his work:

the conviction that identities are shaped when we are

young.

Knudsen essay is a splendid illustration of the

many possibilities that the Arthurian legend offered to

storytellers of the past. And fortunately many other

possibilities remain for storytellers of the future. In lit-

erature at least, King Arthur is and will be ―The Once

and Future King.‖

Works Cited

Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Idylls of the King, ed. J. M.

Gray (London: Penguin, 1996). Cambridge Companion to the Arthurian Legend, ed.

Elizabeth Archibald and Ad Putter. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Malory, Sir Thomas. The Works of Sir Thomas Malory,

ed. Eugène Vinaver, 3rd ed. rev. P. J. C. Field

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.

Stratford Trip The best theatre experiences on the continent

WHAT

3 hour upper-level English course. Can be repeated for credit.

WHEN

August 8-16, 2010.

WHERE

Stratford, Ontario, Canada

PRE-REQUISITE

a sophomore level English course (ENG 2000) or consent of instructor.

COST

$1,725 for students taking course for credit, $1,925 for all other participants

Contact Dr. Milton Riemer: 512-453-3465.

email: Milton.Riemer@concordia.edu or riemermilton@hotmail.com.

Tragic Elements in Arthurian Legend

moirai - in some myths, conceived of as the three female deities in charge of

supervising the fates of people rather than determining it; other myths, how-

ever, suggest their function was presiding over the birth of human beings

and at that moment laying down what their lot in life would be

hubris - destructive pride that causes a protagonist to disregard divine warn-

ings or violate moral law

hamartia - an error or mistake in a protagonist‘s judgment that leads to his

or her destruction

anagnorisis - the protagonist‘s moment of awareness when the significance of his or her actions or speech be-

comes fully realized

catharsis - literally, ―purification;‖ but Aristotle notes that many tragic representations of suffering and defeat

leave an audience not feeling depressed, but relieved. He refers to it as the ―pleasure of [experiencing] pity and

fear‖ and so, the term is often summed up as meaning the purging of pity and fear from the minds of the audience.

- from Classical Mythology by Michael Gant and John Hazel; and

A Glossary of Literary Terms by M.H. Abrams

____________________________________________________________________________________________

page ten The Undergraduate English Journal

(Veldman, continued from page four)

in his unconscious. Instructed by the oracle to banish

or kill the murderer of the former king (Oedipus‘ fa-

ther, Laius), Oedipus makes the hunt for this killer top

priority. He immediately sends for Tiresias, the blind

prophet, to learn the truth of the murder‘s identity so

that he can follow the orders of the gods and rid

Thebes of the man and thus rid Thebes of its plague. It

is when Tiresias sheds light on Oedipus living out his

fate and that he is the same man he hunts, the sole

curse on the city, that Oedipus shows a completely

different side – one of anger, hostility, fear, and stub-

bornness. In a frenzy of rage, Oedipus‘ hubris becomes

evident as he spins a web of insults, threats, and at

Tiresias:

...what envy lurks inside you! ...Creon sets

this wizard on me, this scheming quack, this

fortune-teller peddling lies, eyes peeled for

his own profit – seer blind in his craft! . . . I

stopped the Sphinx! With no help from the

birds, the flight of my own intelligence hit

the mark. And this is the man you‘d try to

overthrow? You think you‘ll stand by

Creon when he‘s king? You and the great

mastermind – you‘ll pay in tears, I promise

you, for this, this witch-hunt. If you didn‘t

look so senile the lash would teach you

what your scheming means! (1030).

In this speech, Oedipus lashes out in anger at the

prophet, wastes no time placing the blame on Creon,

and makes sure that his own greatness is made clear.

It‘s been said that anger is just a mask for fear or pain,

and in this case, it‘s a safe assumption to make that

Oedipus‘ anger is actually fear underneath. Aristotle

makes a point of noting that the tragic hero is not per-

fect in virtue or in justice, and the desperation of Oedi-

pus reveals these imperfections well in this speech.

His lack of the virtue of humility is simply a longer

definition of hubris, and his imperfection in justice is

quite obvious when he is so quick to place blame on

Creon, the one who would take his place as king if he

were to accept the prophecy as truth and banish him-

self from Thebes. Oedipus is immediately thrown into

a state of chaos although he believes in his greatness

and lets himself believe in a plot to overthrow him

because of fearful denial, and it is Creon who bluntly

tells him this when he states, ―Look, if you think

crude, mindless stubbornness such a gift, you‘ve lost

your sense of balance‖ (1035).

Growing fear intensifies Oedipus‘s stubborn-

ness, which in turn feeds his pride and need for con-

trol. Creon asks Oedipus, ―What if you‘re wholly

wrong?‖ to which Oedipus responds, ―No matter – I

must rule,‖ proving his switch from seeking to save

his city and his people, the people he grieves and ca-

res for so much, to a need for control, a need to cling

to what he knows for a fact he still has, the only order

he can be sure of and feel safe about (1037). But still

there is a need to know the truth. After Jocasta, Oedi-

pus‘ wife, talks to him and tells him in an effort to

calm him down and ease his mind that none of what

he fears could be true, that she and Laius never had a

son and Laius was killed by a band of thieves in the

woods, Oedipus reaches his anagnorisis, his moment

of awareness. He remembers being told of this proph-

ecy that he would kill his father and wed his mother

when he went to Delphi one day seeking answers to

rumors he overheard at a party. He ran from Corinth,

where he had been raised under the King and Queen,

and came upon a group of men on the road, killing

every one of them. But again, the tragic hero‘s need

(continued page eleven)

The Undergraduate English Journal page eleven

(Veldman, continued from page ten)

for the truth as well as the fear of his moira, lead him

to continue seeking for a witness to Laius‘ murder.

Oedipus finds his truth, though it is not the truth

he wants to find. Through stories of messengers and

the finding of the shepherd that the stories originate

from, Oedipus finds the truth of the prophecy. He

questions the shepherd who found him as a baby with

his ankles bound about this found child that came

from the house of Laius, until the shepherd breaks,

―All right! His son, they said it was – his son! But the

one inside, your wife, she‘d tell it best.‖ Stunned,

Oedipus asks, ―My wife – she gave it to you?‖ and the

Shepherd explains,

Yes, yes, my king… To kill it… She

was afraid – frightening prophets…

They said – he‘d kill his parents… I

pitied the little baby, master, hoped [the

old man]‘d take him off to his own

country, far away, but he saved him for

this, his fate. If you are the man he says

you are, believe me, you were born for

pain (1051).

At this point, the tragic hero‘s journey is complete.

Oedipus can no longer deny the truth while simultane-

ously continuing to seek for it, nor can he let his hu-

bris stand where his fear has knocked him down. The

only thing that Oedipus can do is follow the orders of

the gods, the orders that he made laws in his land. He

is left to his peripeteia, his reversal of fortune, in which

he gouges out his own eyes and banishes himself from

his kingdom, leaving Creon, of all noblemen, to restore

order to the chaotic scene.

Oedipus‘ journey as the tragic hero follows a sort

of checklist in the Greek tragedies that King Arthur

doesn‘t seem to have. They do share similarities,

though. Both King Arthur and Oedipus have nothing

but good intentions when they start out. Oedipus' good

intentions, his desire as a responsible ruler to rid his

city of the gods' curse of plague and his unyielding

search for the truth, are actions that deserve admiration

rather than contempt as a moral flaw. Oedipus falls

because of a complex set of factors, not from any sin-

gle character trait, although throughout his unyielding

search, he exhibits some significant character flaws.

King Arthur‘s good intentions do lead to downfall, but

simply because they are too good. They both have

hamartia, fatal flaws, but these fatal flaws are better

described as what Aristotle calls the tragic hero‘s,

―miscalculations‖ for King Arthur and Oedipus. These

particular tragic heroes are noble men who fall from

grace through no fault of their own, but rather through

their miscalculations in ruling – their tragic errors in

judgment.

********

Tennyson‘s epic Idylls of the King spans the life of King Arthur beginning with The Coming of Arthur in the first

Idyll, and progressing through twelve idylls about Arthur‘s kingdom and companions. Tennyson closes with Ar-

thur‘s last battle in which the king fights against his knights and his son, and receiving a fatal injury, sails on a

barge out to the sea from which he came.

Tennyson‘s tale is written in an unrhymed iambic pentameter and the story is conveyed with exquisite im-

agery, depth of feeling, and clarity of thought. In his introduction to the 1963 Riverside Literature Series edition

of the Idylls, Jerome H. Buckley describes the beauty of Tennyson‘s work, saying: ―each of Tennyson‘s narratives

is enriched by descriptive detail, crisp in outline, bright in color…‖ (xi) and the back cover of the same edition

claims that ―Tennyson‘s Idylls, like the jeweled sword Excalibur, conquer by their beauty and mystic power.‖

While the Idylls may be beautiful, classical literary criticism has taught its scholars that beauty is one of the

least important elements of good literature. In his work The Republic, Plato speaks of the poets when he says ―We

are conscious of their charms for us. But it would be wrong to betray what we believe to be the truth‖ (Russell

50). While poetry may be beautiful or charming, Plato explains that other elements of content and style must be

taken into account for a piece to be judged as ―good literature.‖ Many classical scholars, such as Aristotle, dis-

agreed with Plato in some of his points and ideas, but did understand that an evaluation of poetry, or any art, must

be based on more than a passing emotion. Tennyson‘s idylls ―Guinevere‖ and ―The Passing of Arthur‖ in the con-

text of the legend as a whole may be studied through the views of Plato as expressed in his work the Republic as

(continued page twelve)

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Plato, Aristotle, and King Arthur by Laura Drell

Laura Drell is a senior English major who will graduate in the fall of

2010. She looks forward to graduate school and teaching English at the

university level.

(Drell, continued from page eleven)

well as through the view of Aristotle as expressed in

his work Poetics.

Despite the fame that the Idylls have won, Plato

would not have approved of Tennyson‘s work. In the

Oxford’s World Classics edition of The Republic

translated by D. A. Russell, Plato speaks through the

voice of Socrates and explains his idea to create a

Utopian Republic founded on good principles and

driven by noble thought and dedication to reason and

logic. Plato speculates about the details of such a

society, including an examination of what types of

literature or art would be allowed in his city. The

chief concern of Plato‘s criticism addresses the influ-

ence of evil characters and deeds on the minds of the

youth, and Plato speaks of poets when he declares

that ―the subject of their imitation from childhood

onwards, must be what is appropriate to them: the

brave, the self controlled, the righteous, the free, and

so on‖ (32). Plato continues by listing what may

never enter poetry: ―nor bad men, nor cowards …

people abusing or ridiculing one another or using

filthy language‖ (33). In short, characters in poetry or

literature must never have bad vices, because these

characters are the role models of young minds, and

thus their inappropriate behavior is dangerous to the

youth. If the characters described in the Idylls

―Guinevere‖ and ―The Passing of Arthur‖ were clas-

sified into Plato‘s categories of good or evil, the re-

sults would not be encouraging.

To begin with, Guinevere is less than virtuous

in her actions and fails to submit to the authority of

her husband. Plato explains that a woman should

never be portrayed ―in the act of reviling her husband

or boastfully competing with the gods … or pos-

sessed by misfortune or mourning or lamentation. As

for illness, love, or childbirth – God forbid!‖ (32).

When Guinevere realized that Modred knew the

secret of her affair with Lancelot, Tennyson de-

scribes her response of fear and guilt:

…at first she laugh‘d

… then shudder‘d, as the village

wife who cries

‗I shudder, someone steps over my

grave;‘

Then she laugh‘d again, but faint

lier, for indeed

She half-forsaw that he, the subtle

beast,

Would track her guilt until he

found, and hers

Would be for evermore a name of

scorn (53, 54-60).

In this passage Guinevere acknowledges her

guilt to herself, and she fears the publication of her

page twelve The Undergraduate English Journal

misdeeds. The image is that of a woman acting dis-

honorably and with emotion. When Guinevere arrives

at the Abby where she seeks refuge after the affair is

made public, she is ―Wrapt in her grief‖ (147) and her

little maid continually implores her ―‗O pray you,

noble lady, weep no more; / but let my words …

Comfort your sorrows‖ (182-183, 186). According to

Plato‘s views, women may only be shown in the most

submissive, gentle state befitting a noble woman. To

show a woman express any emotion would be im-

proper and thus to show Guinevere‘s depth of emotion

and character would have been inexcusable.

Modred is decidedly evil as he plots to over-

throw Arthur‘s kingdom and kills his own father with

a blow to the head. In the Idyll ―Guinevere,‖ Tenny-

son describes Modred‘s character:

Sir Modred; he that like a subtle

beast

Lay couchant with his eyes upon the

throne,

Ready to spring, waiting a chance…

… and sought

To make disruption in the Table

Round

Of Arthur, and to splinter it into feuds

Serving his traitorous end; (10-12, 16-19).

Sir Lancelot‘s placement in Plato‘s categories is

no more hopeful than Modred‘s placement, as Sir

Lancelot represents the King‘s right hand man turned

traitor. When confronting Guinevere about her affair,

Arthur calls Lancelot ―my right arm / the mightiest of

my knights …‖ (426-427), and explains that through

Guinevere‘s sin with Lancelot, many of his greatest

knights have turned against him:

Then came thy shameful sin with Lancelot;

Then came the sin of Tristram and

Isolt;

Then others, following these my

mightiest knights,

And drawing foul ensample from fair

names,

Sinn‘d also, till the loathsome oppo

site

Of all my heart had destined did ob

tain … (484-489)

Just before his final battle, in the ―Passing of Arthur,‖

Arthur again speaks of the treason of Lancelot and

Guinevere: ―And all whereon I lean‘d in wife and

friend / Is traitor to my peace, and all my realm / Reels

back into the breast and is no more‖ (24-26).

King Arthur, it seems, is the only noble and just

man in the story. In the Idyll ―Guinevere,‖ Arthur

speaks to Guinevere in the Abby and recounts to her

the noble qualities that he has tried to teach his

(continued on page thirteen)

Medieval tapestries

above, South Netherlandish ca. 1400-1410; below right, a

French tapestry ca. 1350-1400

The Undergraduate English Journal page thirteen

(Drell, continued from page twelve)

knights and has himself upheld: ―To reverence the King,

as if he were / Their conscience … To break the heathen

and uphold the Christ, / … To speak no slander, no , nor

listen to it, / To honor his own word as if his God‘s / To

lead sweet lives in purest chastity‖ (465-471). As Arthur

continues his list it becomes clear that he is a good and

noble king and maybe, since Plato allows for some cen-

soring, all other characters should just be omitted until

only Arthur remains.

The legitimate use of censoring is acceptable to

Plato, but in the case of Tennyson‘s epic, the entire story

is propelled forward by evil and violent deeds. The

beautiful legend of King Arthur that is so loved and ac-

cepted in modern society would have been outlawed

from Plato‘s Utopia as horrific and inexcusable.

Though he was a pupil of Plato, Aristotle would

have felt very differently about the tale of King Arthur.

In his work Poetics, translated by M. E. Hubbard, Aris-

totle categorizes basic elements of a good plot and effec-

tive characterization. Tennyson meets Aristotle‘s expec-

tations and the critic would have admired the character

of King Arthur and termed him an excellent tragic hero.

When Aristotle refers to tragedy, or to tragic heroes, he

is speaking in terms of theatrics and dramas, a cate-

gory in which Tennyson‘s epic does not belong; for

this reason, it is beneficial to place form aside, thus

allowing for an honest examination of Tennyson‘s

content.

The first element of good tragedy that Aristotle

addresses is the development of the protagonist. A

tragedy is created when the protagonist passes from

good fortune to bad fortune. The character that

would best accomplish the tragic effect of ―fear and

pity‖(66) should be ―one who is not pre-eminent in

moral virtue, who passes to bad fortune not through

vice or wickedness, but because of some piece of

ignorance, and who is of high repute and great good

fortune‖ (66). Aristotle speaks very highly of Sopho-

cles‘ character Oedipus, as an example of a good

tragic hero. Examining the three requirements in

reverse order (noble character, a fateful mistake, and

slightly less than perfect virtue), Oedipus fits Aris-

totle‘s model for a good protagonist because of his

upright character, and because he faces downfall as a

result of a deed that he committed unknowingly.

Oedipus was a hero in Thebes but unknowingly ful-

filled his miora set out by the gods by killing his

father, marrying his mother, and having children by

her, thus bringing about his own ruin. In the same

way, King Arthur proved his leadership abilities by

heroically uniting the tribes of Britain, but as various

legends explain, he unknowingly slept with his half-

sister and fathered Modred, who later bent his pur-

poses to destroying Arthur‘s kingdom. Like Oedi-

pus, Arthur caused his own ruin inadvertently.

Arthur‘s downfall was also caused by the ac-

tions of Guinevere and his knights, all of whom

were out of Arthur‘s control. They caused the down-

fall of not just the king, but of the entire kingdom.

John D. Rosenberg explains in his essay Tennyson

and the Passing of Arthur, ―I sometimes believe that

the great world of Arthurian myth came into being

(continued on page fourteen)

CHRONOLOGY OF ARTHURIAN TEXTS BEFORE 1500

Gildas, De excidio et conquestu Britannie [Concerning the Ruin and Conquest of Britain], c. 530-40 (Latin)

"Nennius," Historia Brittonum [History of the Britons], c. 800 (Latin) Annales Cambrie [The Welsh Annals], c. 960-980 (Latin) Early Welsh poetic references, 10th century on (Middle Welsh) The Porta della Pescheria of Modena Cathedral, c. 1120-1140 Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia regum Britannie [History of the Kings of Britain], c. 1136

(Latin) Wace, Roman de Brut, c. 1155 (Anglo Norman) Layamon, Brut, late twelfth century (early Middle English) Chrétien de Troyes, writing last half of the twelfth century (Old French) The Vulgate Cycle, c. 1215-1235 (French) Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, last quarter fourteenth century (Middle English) Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyn, late fourteenth century (Middle English) Alliterative Morte Arthure, near end of fourteenth century (Middle English) Sir Thomas Malory, Le Morte Darthur, c. 1470

page fourteen The Undergraduate English Journal

(Drell, continued from page thirteen)

solely to memorialize this primal scene of loss, the

loss of a once-perfect fellowship in a once-perfect

world‖ (121). The tragic fall of King Arthur was

effected by the tragic loss of fellowship among

King Arthur‘s knights. King Arthur himself

mourned the loss of his friends and before the battle

in Tennyson‘s last idyll, he says ― – Ill doom is

mine / To war against my people and my knights. /

The king who fights his people fights himself./ And

they my knights, who loved me once, the stroke /

That strikes them dead is as my death to me‖ (70-

74). King Arthur was a good, noble King, but by

the affects of events out of his control, his reign and

kingdom came to a tragic end.

Both Oedipus and Arthur fulfill Aristotle‘s

first two requirements for noble character and tragic

downfall; the last requirement demands a protago-

nist be ―one who is not pre-eminent in moral vir-

tue‖ (66). Aristotle does not want a perfect person;

he wants a character that shows the qualities of real

life. Every protagonist demonstrates some type of

hamartia that allows their miora to affect their fu-

ture. This adds a third dimension to the character

and enhances the piece as a whole. Oedipus‘ fits of

rage and temper are an acceptable hamartia. Ar-

thur‘s gentle disposition and merciful judgments

affect his ability to govern and can be interpreted as

his hamartia leading to downfall. One may specu-

late that if Arthur had been able to better control his

men, or to discipline them properly, they may not

have turned against him in the end.

In his resemblance to Oedipus, King Arthur

displays all three characteristics of Aristotle‘s re-

quirements for a protagonist. Arthur is a king of upright

character who possesses a fatal flaw and untimely suf-

fers downfall by some deed of ―ignorance‖ (Hubbard

66). Contrary to Plato‘s disapproval, Tennyson‘s Idylls

would have won the favor of Aristotle.

Despite the beauty of Tennyson‘s verse in his

Idylls of the King, the classical critics would have

looked past its sublimity to examine its content. Plato

would have rejected Tennyson‘s work on the grounds of

portraying inappropriate characters and behaviors. Aris-

totle, on the other hand, would have praised the plot and

characterization that molded Arthur‘s life into a perfect

literary tragedy.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Poetics. Trans. M. E. Hubbard. Classical Lit-

eracy Criticism. Ed. D.A. Russell and Michael Win-

terbottom. New York: Oxford U. press. 1998.

Buckley, Jerome H. ―Tennyson and the Legend of King

Arthur.‖ Forward. Idylls of the King. By Alfred

Tennyson. . Ed. Kenneth S. Lynn and Arno Jewett.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1963.

Plato. The Republic. Classical Literary Criticism. Ed.

D.A. Russell and Michael Winterbottom. New

York: Oxford U. press. 1998.

Rosenberg, John D. ―Tennyson and the Passing of Ar-

thur.‖ The Passing of Arthur: New Essays in Arthu-

rian Tradition. Ed. Christopher Baswell and Wil-

liam Sharpe. New York: Garland Publishing. 1988.

Tennyson, Alfred. Idylls of the King. Ed. Kenneth S.

Lynn and Arno Jewett. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company. 1963.

Sophocles. The Oedipus Plays of Sophocles. Trans. Paul

Roche. New York: Plume. 1991.

The Undergraduate English Journal page fifteen

"Evidence-Based Learning and Teaching" The 2010 Lilly Conferences will highlight evidence-based learning and teaching. Evidence-based learning is

the key to the development of critical thinking. Using evidence in teaching is scholarly teaching and produc-

ing evidence in teaching is the basis of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Featured Tracks: Advancing Active Learning, Teaching Well with Technology, Engaging and Motivating Students, Promoting Diversity, Service/Experiential Learning, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Faculty Development

I Show Up Twelve Years Late For Curfew

I appear cold, muddy, unstable in the foyer.

My parents are polite, but stiff, like a French host family.

They have new children, who have new toys

which make intergalactic noises in the night.

Their eyes are brown with gold flecks, not like mine.

They either can‘t remember things or don‘t care

that I hate tomatoes. Over dinner, my mother asks

my middle name. When I tell her, she says ―oh, yes?‖

Trying to feel relevant now is a bit like

touching my own mouth shot full of anesthetic,

or forming the word ―bouche‖ while drunk.

I survey the unnatural ocean of their new blue carpet

and try not to chew like a starving person.

This is my family, these people so inept at things like

memory and monopoly, I feel like a trickster god

hiding my funny-money under the board.

by Karyna McGlynn

English Adjunct Concordia University Texas

from her book of poetry I Have to Go Back to 1994

and Kill a Girl (Sarabande Books, 2009)

The Undergraduate

English Journal

Guest Respondent

Dr. Ad Putter, University of Bristol Bristol, England p. 1

Student Papers

―The Decline and Fall of Arthur‘s Kingdom‖ by Courtney Knudsen p. 2

Literature Review

―Depicting the Tragic Hero‖ by Marisa Veldman p. 4

―A Classicist Responds to Arthur Legend‖ by Laura Drell p. 11

Poetry

―The fox had no face the loggerman said‖ by Karyna McGlynn p. 8

―I Show Up Twelve Years Late for Curfew‖ by Karyna McGlynn p. 15

The Undergraduate English Journal Department of English

Concordia University Texas

11400 Concordia University Drive

Austin, Texas 78726

(512) 313-5419