Victorians! discussion
Archived Group Reads 2011
>
"Idylls of the King" by Tennyson-Background and Resources
The Idylls of a King are a series of poems which have been inspired by the Legend of King Arthur. Though many of us may be familair with the legend, for those that may not know it, or are a bit rusty. Here is some information about the Legend of King Arhtur which may be helpful in reading.
http://www.legendofkingarthur.co.uk/
http://www.caerleon.net/history/arthu...
http://www.kingarthursknights.com/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/...
http://www.kingarthursknights.com/oth...
Here are some Pre-Rahpealite paintings of the Legend of King Arthurhttp://www.artmagick.com/images/conte...
http://www.artmagick.com/images/conte...
http://www.artmagick.com/images/conte...
http://www.artmagick.com/images/conte...
http://www.artmagick.com/images/conte...
http://www.artmagick.com/images/conte...
http://www.artmagick.com/images/conte...
Those paintings are the reason I LOVE anything to do with King Arthur! Absolutely gorgeous! I really like the one where Arthur is holding his crown. The last one I have seen before, I know it is Merlin, but I can't remember who the woman is. Does anyone know? I am super excited about this read, I think it will be a favorite of mine!
Thanks Silver for the background info. I've read this but I want to re capture again so I voted for this one. It's one of my favourites andI'm going to join all the way. Tennyson retold these epic romances with the sources of:Le Morte d'Arthur, Vols 1-2 by Thomas Malory
I've not read it yet but I'm aware of the famous saying "If Malory's "Le Morte D'Arthur" is the skeleton of Arthurian literature then Tennyson's "Idylls of the King" is its flesh and blood"
More information about King Arthur:The Historical King Arthur
http://www.grahamphillips.net/trail/2...
Assessing the Arthurian in Tennyson’s ‘Idylls of the King
http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/cambridg...
Rachel wrote: "Those paintings are the reason I LOVE anything to do with King Arthur! Absolutely gorgeous! I really like the one where Arthur is holding his crown. The last one I have seen before, I know it is Me..."The woman is Nimue, also known as Viviane
Oh yes! Thanks Silver. I always found it tragic that Merlin's love life never quite worked out. This is my first time reading Idylls, so I wonder if there will be anything about it in Idylls.
Just to let you know for anyone who may be interested. Tennyson's poem "The Lady of Shalott" though not a part of the Idylls, is a poem associated with the legend of Arthur, so I have opened a separate thread for it.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/6...
Silver wrote: "The Idylls of a King are a series of poems which have been inspired by the Legend of King Arthur...."I hope you won't think me rudely pedantic for pointing out that it's "Idylls of the King," not of "a King." I think perhaps it makes a bit of a difference.
I haven't looked at the links you posted yet, so they may cover this, but if not, or for those who don't have time or interest to follow the links, it may be of interest to note that the Idylls were not written in the order in which they now appear, but the first four poems, which did not include The Coming of Arthur, were published in 1859, and included Merlin and Vivien, which was the first of the poems written; the remaining poems were written between 1869 and 1872 (though the last not published until 1885); they were published together in the order in which we know them in 1891.
No, I didn't know all this out of my head; most of it comes from the Oxford Companion to English Literature, a wonderful resource for literature lovers.
Silver wrote: "Here are some Pre-Rahpealite paintings of the Legend of King Arthurk.com/images/content/butler/med......"Wonderful paintings!
Of, of course, the legendary Arthur, not the historical Arthur, who was about 400 years too early to be a knight or have that sort of armor or weaponry.
But why carp. The legend is good enough. Solet's just enjoy the paintings. Including these NC Wyeth illustrations from, I believe, the Pyle edition of Arthur which was the standard edition I my friends and I read growing up.
I don't think we can be dogmatic with Arthurian legend, because it is mostly legend. While some of it may be based on actual real, historical events/people (I personally always like to believe that King Arthur was real), what we have now is so varied and distorted. A lot of characters/stories in Arthurian legend are contradictory. In some literature, Mordred is Arthur's son, in another his brother, in others his nephew- and this is just one example. Much of King Arthur has been lost in history, so we don't even know exactly when he was "alive". I'm hoping to try to enjoy Idylls as a great epic poem, and while other pieces of Arthurian literature may influence my thoughts while reading, we just need to have an open mind about the legend.
Good points Rachel. In the UK it is taught in schools as legend, with a nod towards history:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/...
Rachel wrote: "I don't think we can be dogmatic with Arthurian legend, because it is mostly legend. "I agree with you, but it may be worth just keeping in mind that there was a historical figure behind the legends. This has happened a fair amount in English history, where legend will start with a historical figure but then "take off" on its own.
Hello, I'm a little late coming into this discussion, but I will start reading and catch up with all of you. I have never read Idylls of the King, but I have read and taught Mallory's Le Morte D'Arthur at my university. I am now a retired English professor. I, too, use the Oxford Companion to English Literature. Anyway, I have time now to read all the books that I haven't read yet! Yea!!!
Patricia wrote: "I am now a retired English professor. "Hot diggety! You can expect me to pick your brain liberally!
Congratulations Patricia! You sound super happy to have the time to read. :) I bought Le Morte D'Arthur, but I never finished it. Maybe reading Idylls will inspire me to.
I would recommend The Victorian Web, Tennyson, for some background about the author and his works:http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/t...
Because it came up in discussion and does play an important role within the legend of Arthur and the Knights of the Round table, particuarly in Tennyson's romanticized view, there is some information about the Knights Code of Honor: http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/knights...
I find the Rules of Courtly Love to be particuarly amusing here:
http://www.castles.me.uk/medieval-cod...
The 31 rules of Courtly love were horrible! lol No wonder it said it was Anne Boleyn's downfall. Interesting those were around at the same time of the Knight's code of honor.
Rachel wrote: "The 31 rules of Courtly love were horrible! lol No wonder it said it was Anne Boleyn's downfall. Interesting those were around at the same time of the Knight's code of honor."They lived in barbaric times. It was necessary to have standards for love and courtship. Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter (1124-1204) wanted their men to *behave* better. So, they established these 31 standards of Courtly Love. In our day, men and women have very few standards for courtship. It's sort of like, "Let's do it in the road." We can learn something from the standards of Courtly Love.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I got the "Let's do it in the road" impression from reading the Courtly Love rules. It said it described pure love, which was fine, but then it mentioned it also described a man loving another man's wife. That's what I called horrible, how it seems to condone adultery. Especially in rule #31, and how the rules in general seem to have no restrictions for love.
Rachel wrote: "The 31 rules of Courtly love were horrible! lol No wonder it said it was Anne Boleyn's downfall. Interesting those were around at the same time of the Knight's code of honor."They are horrible and horribly funny :D "Every lover regularly turns pale in the presence of his beloved." when it's written down as rules, sounds like it's a must. I know that's not what's meant by that but I was imagining it like that.
Rachel wrote: "Maybe I misunderstood, but I got the "Let's do it in the road" impression from reading the Courtly Love rules. It said it described pure love, which was fine, but then it mentioned it also describe..."Yes, courtly love seems strange. In the Middle Ages, royal marriages were arranged. Love could not often exist within a marriage. It could only happen outside of a marriage. Courtly love was a kind of "sanctified adultery."
Amalie, I thought that one was hilarious too! lol Some of them were totally funny, especially the one about the lover's heart palpitating! :) That made me laugh.Patricia, I still disagree with adultery. From what you said earlier, I understand better what was meant by the rules, as them seeming to genuinely trying to make things better. But to me, adultery is never sanctified, which is why I find some of those rules wrong.
They are still fascinating to look at!
Rachel wrote: "Amalie, I thought that one was hilarious too! lol Some of them were totally funny, especially the one about the lover's heart palpitating! :) That made me laugh.Patricia, I still disagree with ad..."
While generally I agree with you about adultery in considering the reality of the time period, it would be a very rare occasion that any marriage would be made for love. So essentially to engage in adulterous relationships, though wrong by our standards in considering the time period it would be the only real opportunity in which a person might have for genuine love.
Marriage was used as a business contract essentially, and so the engagement of adulterous relationships at least gave them a reprieve from the misery of their lives, gave them something of passion.
While some marriage in spite of this may have worked out well and the individuals found some contentment with each other, in many cases very young girls/women were married to men old enough to be their fathers, whom they never laid eyes on before, so they do not have much hope for the future that awaits them. So affairs was really the only way love could be made possible for them.
When I read books from medieval time periods, I sometimes wonder if the girls who married men SO much older then them didn't mind. Today it's considered horrid and usually that the man would be a pedophile, but maybe they totally accepted it then. I don't know, just a thought.
Rachel wrote: "When I read books from medieval time periods, I sometimes wonder if the girls who married men SO much older then them didn't mind. Today it's considered horrid and usually that the man would be a p..."Well they probably did have some acceptance of it being that they did not really know any other life style but I cannot imagine a 15 year old who probably has not been given much of an education on what to expect in marriage, and is put in a position of forced submission to a strange man, would be a pleasant experience.
There may have been some that have been able to make a decent life, and maybe even some whom lucked out and were married to men who were more liberal minded or sympathetic, or actually did care about their wives.
But one also has to consider at this time as a whole men did have a very low opinion of women and saw them as being inferior and many cases men were predominantly interested in wives as a source of begetting them sons.
Just becasue they had no real choice but to accept this life does not mean they were truly happy with it.
True. While the Middle Ages is my favorite time period, I really wouldn't like to live in it, just visit. ;)
Rachel wrote: "Maybe I misunderstood, but I got the "Let's do it in the road" impression from reading the Courtly Love rules. It said it described pure love, which was fine, but then it mentioned it also described a man loving another man's wife. That's what I called horrible, how it seems to condone adultery. Especially in rule #31, and how the rules in general seem to have no restrictions for love. "Since many marriages were arranged, and for reasons totally other than love (especial courtly marriages, where they were usually for reasons of state) is it surprising that men and woman forced into marriages they had no desire to be in wanted to be able to experience the joy of loving sex with somebody?
That's not an issue today, at least in the West, with parents not able to force children to marry people they might even never have met, and with divorce readily available if love dies, but imagine having to marry a man who disgusted you (and who didn't care for you, either) but who you were forced to marry because his family and yours needed a marriage to heal a long-standing breach and you needed to produce a joint heir to cement the inter-family relationship. Of course, there is no chance you could divorce; you're stuck with this man for life, who may bed you only once or twice to get an heir and then dash off to the Crusades or go off to London and leave you alone in your Scottish castle or whatever.
Wouldn't you want the chance to have a relationship with somebody you fell in love with, and have that be acceptable under the rules of society and not something that would get your locked up in a tower room for?
Edit: I see I duplicated ideas others posted -- should have read through the thread first, I see. Ah well, it just reinforces the reasons for the 31 rules.
I think during the Middles Ages, "age" would have been looked at entirely differently than we do today. Average life expectancies of all were much shorter. I think their culture wasn't like ours as much -- everyone wants a young and beautiful spouse -- rather than the cult of "the beautiful," these people were more of the cult of "lucky to be alive." People died of a broken bone, there were no "simple" respiratory infections, no scheduled C-sections. Also, now, many cultures divide the periods of life by early childhood, school years, and adulthood. That would not have been the case during that time in England. Today in my U.S. culture, we would be questioning if a "school girl" married a 35 year old. That thinking would not have been the case really in Medieval England.
It may be more interesting to think of how our views of age have changed to the point that they have today.
Give me the art, literature, music, clothes and architecture and you can have the rest.Come to think of it, I have access to all of that right now (except the clothes). But who wants to actually wear those heavy, binding things?
Still it is fun to romanticize, c'est pas?
Everyman wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Maybe I misunderstood, but I got the "Let's do it in the road" impression from reading the Courtly Love rules. It said it described pure love, which was fine, but then it mentioned i..."lol "leave you alone in your Scottish castle or whatever"...sounds good to me! lol just kidding... I've always wanted to visit a castle.
Seriously though, I totally understand what you were saying, I just tend to agree more with what SarahC said after, how age was viewed so differently. I don't think it would be as disgusting then as it would be now. Not that I'm saying I'm the authority on it, of course I wasn't living then. I just think we focus today on the bad that happened then, since that is always what stands out, even if it wasn't the majority of what really happened.
Rachel wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Maybe I misunderstood, but I got the "Let's do it in the road" impression from reading the Courtly Love rules. It said it described pure love, which was fine, but th..."I do not think it is strictly a question of age or the views of age when considering human emotion. A women could just as equally be disgusted by a man only 2 years older than one who was 30 years older than her.
It is not purely a question of the age difference, but the fact you are given away to be married to a man whom is a stranger to you, and who you have no choice but to sleep with, and whom under the law could force himself on you and would not likely take your own feelings into consideration.
If everyone was truly happy and contented with this mode of doing things, and did not feel any dissatisfaction in it, than no one would have been the first person to start to rebel agasint it, and see the need to change how things are done.
We talked a bit ago about the issue of history vs. legend or myth. In that context, I found this note by Tennyson to the Idylls relevant:"How much of history we have in the story of Arthur is doubtful. Let not my readers press too hardly on details whether for history or for allegory. Some think King Arthur may be taken to typify conscience. He is anyhow meant to be a man who spent himself in the cause of honor, duty, and self-sacrifice, who felt and aspired with his nobler knights, though with a stronger and clear conscience than any of them, "reverencing his conscience as his king."
I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear. I never meant to say that an arranged marriage was necessarily a nice or pleasant thing, or even that I would be ok with one myself, or that they should be done today as the norm. I just don't think that ALL of them were as extreme as people are saying. The situations being cited are worst case scenarios. I think we're looking at them with a modern view. I don't believe that every arranged marriage was with people who had NEVER met or who had absolutely NO desire to marry.I thought the 31 rules were for the knights? If men were the ones making the marriage matches, then why should they be allowed to have affairs? I don't see how that's justified in the name of love.
Rachel wrote: "I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear. I never meant to say that an arranged marriage was necessarily a nice or pleasant thing, or even that I would be ok with one myself, or that they should be done t..."I believe the Rules of Courtly Love applied to everyone (at least in the nobility), but I am not completely positive about that.
As for the men being the ones making the marriages, that is true to a certain extent. Depending upon ones class even a man may be subject to the wishes of his family and what is best for the family advancement.
A noble lord would in most cases not be allowed to marry a peasant girl because he loved her.
And in some cases in the nobility parents would make marriage arrangements for their children before they were even old enough to marry. And then when both parties came of age they would be wed, without either the man or woman having a say in it.
If a man did decide to marry against the wishes of his family, he could be disowned and loose his privilege, and wealth.
Also I think at this time the King had to grant permission for any marriage. And in deciding whether or not to approve of a marriage the king would consider his own motives and how a match may be beneficial or disadvantous to him.
Considering the view that the society had of women, and considering the fact it was true men were more predominately interest in having male heirs, I am not so certain we are looking at just the most extreme case scenarios. It might actually be an idealistic view to think that there were many women in happy, contented arrangement marriages where they were will treated, and respected, and genuinely cared for.
I guess I'm in the minority here, and that's ok! I appreciate everyone politely discussing this with me. I've read a lot about the Medieval time period because it's my favorite, but I may be totally wrong on this topic because I think most people in this group have been reading for longer than I have! That's one thing I love about goodreads, is the wealth of information people have on here!
No, the views of age in the Middle Ages were not the only views that affected how people dealt with within the marriage issue. And keep in mind when arrangements were made when children were still in childhood, BOTH men and women could have been unhappy with the outcome. So it wasn't just a woman's plight, although a woman did have to endure aspects that a man did not. I may have misunderstood you Silver, but I don't think any of the points here have reflected an idealistic view of marriage and treatment within the marriage within that era.
I also have to disagree that to produce a male heir was more predominantly the interest of the men in society. Without a male heir to inherit the property, to care for and manage the affairs of the family, women within the family knew their plight was must more chancy. Everyone in the family depended on the male heir actually. This was true, as we know, right up into the modern age.
Yes, I agree Rachel, I think many arranged marriages did work to the advantage of both men and women. Just as a love match works and sometimes does not work in our current day. And no, arranged marriages of course did not support the rights and freedom of women, but I feel as we are maybe accidentally talking about two different subjects in this topic: the viability of arranged marriage and women's liberation.
Rachel wrote: "I guess I'm in the minority here, and that's ok! I appreciate everyone politely discussing this with me. I've read a lot about the Medieval time period because it's my favorite, but I may be totall..."I'm in the minority with you, Rachel. Arranged marriages often worked out better than many of today's hormonal marriages or hook-ups do.
SarahC wrote: "No, the views of age in the Middle Ages were not the only views that affected how people dealt with within the marriage issue. And keep in mind when arrangements were made when children were still ..."I was not suggesting that the need of producing heirs was only a concern of the men, but that was the primary interest when considering a marriage for men. They did not marry out of affection, love, sentimentality, they married because they needed legitimate male heirs. That does not mean that producing male heirs was not a concern of women as well. But the point I was trying to make was producing heirs was the primary purpose of a marriage.
Laurele wrote: I'm in the minority with you, Rachel. Arranged marriages often worked out better than many of today's hormonal marriages or hook-ups do. "I am not sure how well arranged marriages would work out in a society in which the women were viewed as property of their husbands, and there was no laws in which to protect them and their husbands could do anything they wanted to their wives and it would be seen as their right to do so.
SarahC wrote: And no, arranged marriages of course did not support the rights and freedom of women, but I feel as we are maybe accidentally talking about two different subjects in this topic: the viability of arranged marriage and women's liberation..."When speaking of arranged marriages and the middle ages I think it is not just a question of the fact that arrangement marriages were not very liberated towards women but in the question of how well the marriages at this time may have worked out, we have to consider that this is a culture in which women were considered the property of their husbands, and men believes themselves fully in their right to beat their wives, force themselves sexually on them, and in some cases even have them killed.
So it is not just a matter of the modern world looking down upon the system of arranged marriages, and the fact that it would not be very pleasant to be forced into marriage with someone, but it is also considering the attitude towards women which existed at this time.
I do not mean to imply that the marriages would be unhappy purely because they are arranged marriages, but I am also taking into account how the women are likely to be treated by their husbands in an arranged marriage of the Middle Ages.
I am not speaking of arranged marriages in general.
Rachel wrote: "I never meant to say that an arranged marriage was necessarily a nice or pleasant thing, or even that I would be ok with one myself, or that they should be done today as the norm. I just don't think that ALL of them were as extreme as people are saying. "My perception is that part of that was because of several cultural issues. I think there was less emphasis on the marriage making you happy, and more emphasis on each party's responsibility to make the marriage happy. With no divorce, and therefore no options, there must have been an additional emphasis on making the effort to make the marriage at least acceptable, if not truly happy. And I think there was less emphasis then on one's right to happiness now and at this and every moment of life, and more emphasis on duty and living life now not so much for its own sake but for the sake of the life to come after death.
All, I suspect, factors that made, as you suggest, many arranged marriages as happy as those in them at the time reasonably expected them to be.
Silver wrote: "SarahC wrote: "No, the views of age in the Middle Ages were not the only views that affected how people dealt with within the marriage issue. And keep in mind when arrangements were made when child..."Silver, I simply have to disagree. This is a generalization. I am not sure what basis you have for that statement, but, mostly, is it fair?
Also, to your last statement, laws and government were different in England in the Middle Ages, but the marriage would have had many similarities to Western marriages of today -- and many cultures of other parts of the world as well I believe -- the husband and wife would have both had entirely important roles within the household, the farm, the estate, the family business. Husband and wife were important in the management of the family and the workings of the home and land -- men did not marry only so they would have a female give birth to a legitimate heir.
Pardon me, but your comments give the picture of women as only abused and subservient and that is simply not true.
SarahC wrote: Pardon me, but your comments give the picture of women as only abused and subservient and that is simply not true. "Women were expected to be subservient, and they could be beaten for any act of perceived disobedience against their husbands.
I do not mean to imply that is the only aspect of their lives and there certainly were exceptions, as well there may very well have been marriages that worked out comparatively well and men whom did treat their wives with respect.
I only wanted to point out that when I was speaking of arranged marriages I was speaking in context of what they would have been, or at least could have been like within the middle ages. And that reasons for them being unhappy was about more than just possible age differences or more than just the fact that they were arranged.
There were not any real laws to protect women against ill treatment at this time period. Women were under the domination of their husbands, and whatever a husband saw fit to do with his wife, was accepted and not questioned.
Considering all the dicussion around the roles of women, and the fact that they do play an important role within the story, I thought it may be of interest to post some links upon the subject of women in the Middle Ages.http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/middle-...
http://www.camelotintl.com/village/wo...
http://www.medieval-spell.com/Roles-O...
http://www.medievality.com/medieval-w...
http://sandradodd.com/sca/womenandwork
And here is some infomraiton about marraige in the Middle Ages
http://www.medieval-weddings.net/inde...
http://www.dfwx.com/medieval_cult.html
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATL...
Silver wrote: "Women were expected to be subservient, and they could be beaten for any act of perceived disobedience against their husbands. "I would make several points.
One, theory is one thing, practice is another. Clearly some women were beaten by their husbands, and I'm sure vice versa, though not lawfully in the second case. But that doesn't mean that the practice was widespread. I don't know any statistics personally, but I wonder whether there are any reliable statistics from the time.
Two, domestic abuse is unfortunately quite prevalent even today. I had to deal with a fair amount of it as a family law attorney. It's not legal any more, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen relatively frequently. Is there more or less today than there was in the Victorian era? I have no way of knowing. But what I'm sure of is that it was not simply a result of being lawful at the time, or else it wouldn't be happening today when it's no longer legal in Western countries.
Three, you wrote "There were not any real laws to protect women against ill treatment at this time period. Women were under the domination of their husbands, and whatever a husband saw fit to do with his wife, was accepted and not questioned." I believe, from my limited reading of domestic relations of the time, that there were a number of cases in which brothers or fathers of abused wives intervened to protect the women. And just as the gratuitous beating of slaves for no adequate reason (if there is any such thing), while legal in the antebellum South, was limited by social condemnation, I suspect that wife beaters were sometimes (often?) objects of social condemnation. After all, surely most parents or brothers of a young woman want to see them treated decently. No parent, I think, ever raises a child with the goal of having them beaten for the rest of their lives.
So while certainly spousal abuse was practiced then legally as it is today illegally, I haven't seen any data which would suggest that in practice it was more frequent then than now.
Everyman wrote: It's not legal any more, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen relatively frequently. Is there more or less today than there was in the Victorian era? I have no way of knowing. But what I'm sure of is that it was not simply a result of being lawful at the time, or else it wouldn't be happening today when it's no longer legal in Western countries. "First of all I just want to make it clear so there are not any misunderstandings, my above statements were aimed at the Middle Ages not the Victorian Era.
While in the Victorian period women were still regaruded as inferrior, I beleive that women did have more protection agasint domestic violence from the legal system in the Victorina period than they did in the Middle Ages.
So just to clarify as such bares relelvance to the dicussion, in the instance you stated about the family memmbers invervening, was that from the Victorian Era, or the Middle Ages?
After all, surely most parents or brothers of a young woman want to see them treated decently. No parent, I think, ever raises a child with the goal of having them beaten for the rest of their lives.
In considering the Middle Ages, while I am sure there were families and parents whom did genuinely care about thier daughters, and would not wish to see them ill treated, on the other hand it is also true that the general mindset of that era was that daughters were not valued by fathers and often seen as a disappointment. And girls/women were just as susceptible to being beaten by thier fathers as they were by husbands. That is not say that such happened all the time, but it was socially acceptable, and legally supported and viewed as the father's godly right, and duty to use physical violence agasint his child if she were to act in a way which he considered to be disobedient.
Silver wrote: "So just to clarify as such bares relelvance to the dicussion, in the instance you stated about the family memmbers invervening, was that from the Victorian Era, or the Middle Ages? "Both. I've been listening to several DVD courses on the Middle Ages recently, and modern research is showing that they were much more civilized than we, or at least I, was taught back in school. The Middle Ages, after all, were the height of the age of Chivalry, when respect for women, at least in the aristocracy, was paramount.
But again, I haven't seen actual statistics on domestic violence rates then and now, so I'm not making a factual assertion, but just reflecting my general reading and coursework.
Please be weary of spoilers within this thread, or possible spoilers revealed in any external links that may be posted.