Victorian-age England approached medievalism through several stages, beginning with romanticism in the 18th century and followed by the Gothic Revival (renewed interest in medieval architecture) and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood . The  Pre-Raphaelite’s insisted on utilizing art techniques from the middle ages. 

John Everett Millain- Ophelia (1852)

Edmund Blair Leighton- Godspeed (1900)

 The Gothic revival was very popular, as evinced by the grand spectacle that is the house of Parliament. 

Introduction to King Arthur

King Arthur

The Victorians were fascinated with all things medieval. In their formal, refined society of rules, the medieval age represented something wild and exciting. As a focus for that fascination, Tennyson drew the attention of his readership to King Arthur, who had become a figure of legend and pseudo-historical fiction. Arthur was the perfect blend of Victorian virtues and vices: the nobility of knighthood and chivalry combined with the wildness and drama of castles and battles. Tennyson’s treatment of the Arthur character was heavily influenced by the values and fashions of Victorian society. Arthur had become a symbol of human virtue and everything that the Victorians valued about chivalry and being inherently noble. But under the parade of manners that was Victorian England there was still human frailty, which is also a part of the Arthur character, as we know that eventually Arthur does fall because of his own weakness. To enhance these qualities was the sense of adventure and freedom that Arthur represents. The people were weighed down with endless etiquette and found escape through the wild adventures of Arthur and his Knights. Because Arthur was reinvented for the Victorians, he was made in their image. The difference in Mallory’s Arthur and Tennyson’s Arthur are a reflection of Victorian ideals. While vaguely rooted in history, the Arthur legend has grown and evolved far beyond its origins. And yet, a large part of the appeal is the hope or the whisper or the thought that Arthur and his knights COULD have been real.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

The legend of King Arthur has passed in and out of popularity several times over the centuries. Whether he was a real man or just a sort of “coat rack” for Welsh folk stories from the 5^th century is still a subject of some debate. As one archaeologist puts it, “no figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time" (Myres 16). For archaeologists that may be, but from a literary viewpoint it no longer matters that the stories only have a toehold in reality because King Arthur has become a symbol of high ideals on the surface of human frailty. When we think of Arthur, we think of him as the young and strong King, not the old and frail one who is also a part of the stories. In many stories surrounding him, such as in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and even The Lady of Shallot he is in the background for the bulk of the narrative, but the mere presence of his influence (he is not even a character is “Shallot,” but his fabled city is mentioned several times) gives dimension and quality to the rest of the tale. Essentially, without King Arthur no one would care about Sir Gawain or Lancelot.

Explication of Lady of Shalott

Under tower and balcony,

 By garden-wall and gallery,

 A gleaming shape she floated by,

 Dead-pale [20] between the houses high,

 Silent into Camelot.

 Out upon the wharfs they came,

 Knight and burgher, lord and dame,

 And round the prow they read her name,

 'The Lady of Shalott' [21]

 Who is this? and what is here?

 And in the lighted palace near

 Died the sound of royal cheer;

 And they cross'd themselves for fear,

 All the knights at Camelot:

 But Lancelot [22] mused a little space;

 He said, "She has a lovely face;
 God in his mercy lend her grace,
 The Lady of Shalott". [23]

These last two stanzas from The Lady of Shalott demonstrate the influence that Arthur had in Victorian literature. He is not mentioned by name in this poem but his fabled city is and that is enough to get this poem included in the Arthurian tradition. There are assumptions attached to a tale of Camelot, including ideas of masculinity. In the case of this poem the dominant male character is of course Lancelot who only comments on Lady Shalott's pretty face. This poem is useful in  establishing Victorian ideals about gender roles, of course the role of women is most obvious but there is a male undertone. Lancelot says "God in his mercy lend her grace," this is a representation of the spiritual role that men were expected to fill in the house, as they were not only physical protectors of their family, but patriarchal leaders also.                                        

Explications from Idylls of the King

  

(Dedication)

We have lost him: he is gone:
We know him now: all narrow jealousies
Are silent; and we see him as he moved,
How modest, kindly, all-accomplished, wise,
With what sublime repression of himself,
And in what limits, and how tenderly;
Not swaying to this faction or to that;

Death of King Arthur

Tennyson wrote the end of his poem at the beginning. In this excerpt from the dedication of his epic, he enumerates qualities which Arthur possessed. Tennyson's Arthur is of course the Victorian ideal for men. Extremely capable but yet not imposing, with his "sublime repression of himself". He knew his capacity but chose to be a benevolent king instead of a despot. He is a fine model of self-awareness, being unswayable by thoughts of the day, and demonstrating a judgement that encompassed time. In essence, this is the summary of what a Victorian man aspired to be.

The Coming of Arthur

For many a petty king ere Arthur came

Ruled in this isle, and ever waging war

Each upon other, wasted all the land

Another aspect of Victorian masculinity includes an idea of Nationalism and Empire. Arthur set the example of what to do with warring states. By unifying the Britons (like the only historical source, Gildas, said he did at the battle of Badon Hill) he created stability. The Victorian's were in a similar state but on a larger scale. As the British empire expanded there was a sense of historical justification, because the idea was to spread prosperity rather than oppression. That of course is a discussion for a different project, but it is not wholly irrelevant to the marriage of Victorian masculinity to Medieval perceptions.

(Also from The Coming of Arthur)

"Man's word is God in man;
Let chance what will, I trust thee to the death."

This quote speaks to the ideal of inherent nobility. There is an expectation for men to act chivalrous. Not that chivalry was ever practiced according to the Victorian ideal in the Medieval age, but due to the romanticism attached with their medieval fascination the Victorians included this nuance to the tradition of chivalry. It was important for the nobility to feel that theirs was an heavenly calling to be better than the peasantry, rather than just beneficiaries of fortune. Because the notion of nobility was so pervasive in England, it was important for there to be restrictions on their behavior. Therefore, it was a smart move to include chivalry to their image of nobility. 

A Satisfyingly Succinct Treatment of Arthur Through the Ages

NOTE: This is by no means an exhaustive list of Arthur authors, but a brief examination of the highlights. 

Gildas

The oldest literary reference to Arthur comes from Gildas in his Jeremiad On the Ruin of Britain in 540 A.D. where he makes a passing comment about a man who wins some battles and loses some battles against the Saxons, until the decisive battle of Mount Badon where the man is ultimately victorious. 

The Venerable Bede

The Venerable Bede makes a reference to this event almost 200 years after Gildas in 731 A.D. but he mostly just repeats what Gildas said. In the time between these two sources, in the year 600, Arthur is mentioned by Aneirin (No pictures, sorry) when he described another man’s heroic feats and then added “though he was not Arthur.” When looking at these sources from way back, it is difficult to see the connection between this famous warrior and the great King of Camelot. However, from these sources we can tell that this man, whoever he was, emerged as a leader in a time of desperate need to win the day for the Britons. This quality of Arthur’s is also what has endured through his many transformations. He continues to be a symbol for integrity and honor. But he has a lot more growing to do after Bede. 

Geoffrey of Monmouth

Let us skip a few less significant references and continue on to the 12th century where there was a sudden explosion of Arthur tales. Geoffrey of Monmouth has to his credit the coronation of Arthur, because to our knowledge Arthur was not a king until Monmouth said he was. This significant alteration changed Arthur forever. And all Geoffrey said about him was, "And even the renowned king Arthur himself was mortally wounded; and being carried thence to the isle of Avalon to be cured of his wounds, he gave up the crown of Britain to his kinsman Constantine...” Monmouth’s The History of the Kings of Britain has been discredited as a historical work, but the effect of this book has reached through the ages, enchanting new generations with tales of the noble King Arthur. It was from Monmouth’s work that Thomas Mallory based his version of Arthur on for his Le Morte d’Arthur. After Geoffrey, but still in the 12th century came Marie de France and Chretien de Troyes. Marie de France wrote stories in Anglo-Norman, and one of her Lais is about a knight in King Arthur's court named Lanval, who fell love with a fairy woman. Her and Chretien de Troyes were contemporary, and it is from him that we get tales of the quest for the holy grail.

Sit Thomas Mallory

Tennyson

Sir Thomas Mallory’s book is most relevant to our present study because it is where we get many of the now familiar stories surrounding Arthur and his retinue. The inclusion of Merlin, Lancelot, the other Knights, Camelot, Excalibur and so on were first combined by Mallory. Also, he is the main influence for Tennyson’s The Lady of Shallot and Idylls of the King, the second of which is this celebrated poets most ambitious project, spanning many years of his life. Beyond the Victorian age, Mallory and Tennyson’s books work in tandem to influence our modern enchantment with the topic, as they were T.H. White’s primary sources for his book 

The once and Future King (1958) which is a popular book today. This book includes details about Arthur's youth and more details about Merlin, such as how he ages backwards. The animated movie The Sword in the Stone (1963) seems to draw heavily from White's book. The movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail is still very popular. This film follows the spirit of the Arthurian tradition in that it is selective as to which elements of the story it preserves. Main characters like Merlin, Guinevere are left out, while new characters like Tim the Enchanter, The Knights of Ni and the Legendary Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh are added.

       

Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography

Alexander, Michael. Medievalism: The Middle Ages in Modern England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.

Alexander gives a comprehensive layout of how the Medieval Revival got going. He contends against that idea that the revival was an escapist movement and proposes that it was instead a social and political construct. This fits with the argument that I am making.

Barczewski, Stephanie L. Myth and National Identity in Nineteenth-Century Britain: The Legends
of King Arthur and Robin Hood. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000.
This source adds scope to the practice of re-inventing heroes of lore for political purposes.  

Bede, the Venerable. Ecclesiastical History of England, 2nd ed. Translated J.A. Giles. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1849; reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1971. Print.
Bede is one of the authors in the Arthurian tradition, he is useful for my timeline page.

Bryden, Inga. Reinventing King Arthur: The Arthurian Legends in Victorian Culture. Aldershot, Hants, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, c2005.
Bryden departs a bit from my point, focusing on peripheral authors who tapped in to the medieval revival instead of Tennyson, but this source is useful to show that the revival was trendy for a range of authors.

Chandler, Alice. A Dream of Order: The Medieval Ideal in Nineteenth-Century English Literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970.
This source is useful because Chandler asserts that the Medieval Revival was a failure because it did not “fix” the problems it was meant to. Despite the ideals of chivalry and nobility there was still poverty and oppression after the revival ran its course.

Delheim, Charles. The Face of the Past: The Preservation of the Medieval Inheritance in
Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892.
This source inspired my comment at the end of the introduction about how Victorian’s were fascinated with all things medieval. This adds perspective to my project because it talks about how after London was burned down in 1666 they rebuilt it in a style more gothic than it was before. 

Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. Translated and with an Introduction by Lewis Thorpe. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1966; reprint, 1968. Print.
Geoffrey also is part of my timeline page. 

Gildas. De Excidio Britanniae et Conquestu. Translated and edited by J. A. Giles, Six Old English Chronicles. London: George Bell and Sons, 1900. Print.
Gildas is with Bede and Monmouth.

Girouard, Mark. The Return to Camelot: Chivalry and the English Gentleman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.
Girouard explores the ideals and the reality of the chivalric code adopted in the Victorian era. This helps my project because he mentions the influence that Victoria and Albert had on this practice.

Machann, Clinton. Masculinity in four Victorian epics a Darwinist reading. 

Farnham, Surrey, England Burlington, VT Ashgate Pub., 2010,. pp 33-40. Print

This source talks about some criticism to Tennyson's Arthur, which say that he (Arthur) is too effeminate. That may or may not be the case, but it agrees with my notion of reinventing lore.

Mancoff, Debra N. King Arthur's Modern Return. New York: Garland Publishing, 1998.
This source is useful because it explores how the medieval revival, with King Arthur at the center, was tailor made for the Victorian age, which is exactly what I said but this source uses a variety of period-authors while I just focus on Tennyson.

Milbank, Alison. Dante and the Victorians. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998. 
Again, a piece which is outside my particular topic, but this shares the idea that people pick and choose which aspects of a historical figure to remember, just like Tenyson did with Mallory’s Arthur. 

Palmgren, Jennifer A., and Lorretta M. Holloway, eds. Beyond Arthurian Romances: The Reach of Victorian Medievalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
This source again adds scope to my project, it looks at medieval influences outside of the Arthurian tradition. 

Saunders, Clare Broome. Women Writers and Nineteenth-Century Medievalism. New York: Palgrave, 2009.
Saunders talks reports on the women’s perspective of the medieval revival. She uses female responses to the masculine image put forward by authors like Tennyson.

Simpson, Roger. Camelot Regained: The Arthurian Revival and Tennyson, 1800-1849.
Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1990.
This source argues against the notion that Tennyson was introducing Arthur to his audience. Instead he purports that they were at least loosely familiar with the Arthurian legends and would respond to a new treatment of them, such as what Tennyson provided them with.