The Undergraduate
English Journal 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 University 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 written 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 investigate the verse forms of Middle English romances. His research project aims to rediscover the lost worlds of sound in these ancient texts through studying the aural qualities – rhyme and rhythm – of the poetry. As part of the project, recorded readings 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.
Department of English Concordia University Texas Vol. 6 No. 1 April 2010
Guest Respondent Dr. Ad Putter, Director Graduate Studies in English University of Bristol Bristol, England
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 Thomas 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 Arthurian 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)
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
page two
The Undergraduate English Journal
“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 teaching profession. She is currently interning as a copy editor for BookPros, a subdiary of MSB Media. The story of King Arthur has evolved and grown through the ages, beginning with a few sentences in which Arthur is mentioned in passing, and growing to the multi-faceted and romantic tales that are well known and cherished 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 provides 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 attentive 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 character, 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 ―Morte d‘Arthur‖ battle with Sir Launcelot‖ (505). He then calls ―the lords together‖ by John Mulcaster Carrick, 1862 (continued page three)
The Undergraduate English Journal
page three
(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 occasionally 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 Himself. As Mordred proceeds to make war on Arthur at the exact moment that he lands at Dover, again the reader sees
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 accompanies 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.
―Mordred‖ by Julek Heller, 1990
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 kingdom that Tennyson and White managed to portray 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 complicated. Written in poetic form, it manages to convey 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)
page four
The Undergraduate English Journal
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 records 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 foreshadow the greater kingship of his son, Arthur Pendragon. Arthur marries Guenevere and they remain childless, but an incestuous union between Arthur 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. 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 common. 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 succumbs 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 personal 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 required 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 miscalculation that causes Arthur‘s fall from grace. Arthur‘s fall
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)
The Undergraduate English Journal
(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 example, when Lancelot brings her the ―costly gift, hardwon and hardly won…the nine-years-fought-for diamonds,‖ 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 enraged 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 Almesbury‖ (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 coming 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 Arthur, 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
page five
―Guinevere Cloistered and Repentant‖ by Gustav Dore, 1867
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, Tennyson reverses Arthur‘s role from masculine to feminine, claiming Arthur seeks to ―found his new community‖ 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 almost 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 Arthur ―passionless,‖ gives an ―elaborate examination of the advantages and dangers of sexual role reversal‖ (Gilbert 233). (continued page six)
page six
(Knudsen, continued from page five) T. H. White‘s The Once and Future King is also a complicated work in which many character flaws, aspects of human nature, and rash actions on the part of the characters contribute to the fall of Arthur‘s kingdom. 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 contribute 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 exploration 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 begins as a young boy, called ―The Wart‖ and is raised as
―Lancelot Meets King Arthur‖ by N. C. Wyeth, 1922
The Undergraduate English Journal
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 knowing that Arthur ―wanted to destroy Mordred‖ because of his fear and shame (548). Gawaine and the Orkney clan are barely raised by Morgause, always seeking 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 personality, morality, and the way in which they conduct 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 poignant 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 Lancelot 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 Uncle 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 articulation 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 remembered 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)
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 vengeful on anything ―against his family,‖ Agravaine protects 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 Arthur‘s attention as an accusation that cannot be ignored. Though Gawaine attempts to talk him and Agravaine out of this, he fails, and Mordred demands justice against the two. It is here that The End truly begins 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 immense 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 indepth explorations result in mixed and complications and reactions from his readers. In other texts, the actions 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 legend 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.
page seven
―Honour Brought the King Out Upon the Battlements‖ by Dora Curtis, 1905 from Stories of King Arthur and the Round Table
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 Arthurian 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.
page eight
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
(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 particular, 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 today, 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 recent 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 relieved that Knudsen‘s account of Tennyson‘s Lancelot and Elaine and Guinevere has not forced me to change my mind. Tennyson‘s prejudice in these two (continued page nine)
The Undergraduate English Journal
page nine
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.
(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 diamonds 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 reasons why Guinevere comes across as a flawed woman in both these Idylls is that Tennyson deliberately 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 literary 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 psychological 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 identities are determined by our earliest childhood experiences. Here it is revealing to compare the episodes in Malory and T. H. White where Mordred (then a helpless baby) is set adrift in boat by King Arthur. In Malory there is no sign that this episode has any bearing on his later betrayal of King Arthur. In T. H. White, on the other hand, Mordred remembers it with bitterness: whether his memory of the event is real or reconstituted, 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 literature 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.
page ten
The Undergraduate English Journal
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, however, 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 warnings 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 becomes 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ (Veldman, continued from page four) in his unconscious. Instructed by the oracle to banish or kill the murderer of the former king (Oedipus‘ father, 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 stubbornness. 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 perfect 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 himself 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 stubbornness, which in turn feeds his pride and need for control. 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 cares 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, Oedipus‘ 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 prophecy 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
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. 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 Arthur‘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 imagery, 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, disagreed 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 context 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) ___________________________________________________________________________________________
(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 simultaneously continuing to seek for it, nor can he let his hubris 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 single 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. ********
page twelve
(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 influence 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 classified into Plato‘s categories of good or evil, the results 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 possessed 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 describes 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
The Undergraduate English Journal
misdeeds. The image is that of a woman acting dishonorably 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 improper and thus to show Guinevere‘s depth of emotion and character would have been inexcusable. Modred is decidedly evil as he plots to overthrow Arthur‘s kingdom and kills his own father with a blow to the head. In the Idyll ―Guinevere,‖ Tennyson 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)
The Undergraduate English Journal
Medieval tapestries above, South Netherlandish ca. 1400-1410; below right, a French tapestry ca. 1350-1400
(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 censoring, 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 accepted 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, Aristotle categorizes basic elements of a good plot and effective characterization. Tennyson meets Aristotle‘s expectations 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
page thirteen
is speaking in terms of theatrics and dramas, a category 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 Sophocles‘ 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 Aristotle‘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 fulfilled 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 halfsister and fathered Modred, who later bent his purposes to destroying Arthur‘s kingdom. Like Oedipus, Arthur caused his own ruin inadvertently. Arthur‘s downfall was also caused by the actions of Guinevere and his knights, all of whom were out of Arthur‘s control. They caused the downfall 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)
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‖ (7074). 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 protagonist be ―one who is not pre-eminent in moral virtue‖ (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 future. 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. Arthur‘s gentle disposition and merciful judgments affect his ability to govern and can be interpreted as his hamartia leading to downfall. One may speculate 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 suffers 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. Aristotle, 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 Literacy Criticism. Ed. D.A. Russell and Michael Winterbottom. 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 Arthur.‖ The Passing of Arthur: New Essays in Arthurian Tradition. Ed. Christopher Baswell and William 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.
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
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 producing 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 ―A Classicist Responds to Arthur Legend‖ by Laura Drell
p. 4 p. 11
Poetry ―The fox had no face the loggerman said‖ by Karyna McGlynn ―I Show Up Twelve Years Late for Curfew‖ by Karyna McGlynn
p. 8 p. 15
The Undergraduate English Journal Department of English
Concordia University Texas 11400 Concordia University Drive Austin, Texas 78726 (512) 313-5419