The Once and Future Queen

by Nicole Evelina

  304 Comer, "Behold Thy Doom," 59.

  305 Gordon-Wise, The Reclamation of a Queen, 66.

  306 Bonner, "Guinevere as Heroine," 8.

  307 Ahern, "Listening to Guinevere," 89.

  308 Comer, "Behold Thy Doom," 60.

  309 Ahern, "Listening to Guinevere," 105-106.

  310 Comer, "Behold Thy Doom," 51.

  311 Ahern, "Listening to Guinevere," 111.

  312 Comer, "Behold Thy Doom," 75.

  313 Falsani, Teresa Boyle, “Parke Godwin’s Guenevere: An Archetypal Transformation,” Quondam Et Futurus 3, no. 3 (1993): 55.

  CHAPTER TEN

  William Morris, The Defence of Guenevere

  ‘All I have said is truth, by Christ’s dear tears.’

  She would not speak another word, but stood

  Turn’d sideways; listening, like a man who hears

  His brother’s trumpet sounding through the wood

  Of his foes’ lances. She lean’d eagerly,

  And gave a slight spring sometimes, as she could

  At last hear something really; joyfully

  Her cheek grew crimson, as the headlong speed

  Of the roan charger drew all men to see,

  The knight who came was Launcelot at good need.314

  — The Defence of Guenevere by William Morris

  Defense or Deception?

  Published in 1858, William Morris’ 295-line poem, Defence of Guenevere, is controversial, both in interpretation and what it means for the character of Guinevere. Among non-scholars, it is not well-known and is often overshadowed by the works that came before it (Tennyson) and after it (White). But “The Defence of Guenevere” is important in that it was the first work to give Guinevere a chance to speak for herself; up to that point, her story always had been told from a narrative distance. “Very much differing from the authors who made it their intention to depict the lives of ‘kings,’ William Morris, in his poem ‘The Defence of Guenevere,’ directly strives to show Guinevere’s side of the Arthurian conflict,”315 notes Bonner.

  The poem finds Guinevere accused of treason, standing before a jury of the knights who used to serve her. It progresses as her trial does, allowing her to tell the reader and the jury at the same time of her actions and motivations. She is strong and unafraid to speak up for herself, “not submissive or shamefaced in her words. She is bold and persuasive, possessing the same powers of manipulation that enabled her to reduce Lancelot to catatonia in the tales of Chrétien.”316

  At first glance, this poem appears to be the work all Guinevere fans have been waiting for, the opportunity for her to redeem herself; however, that is not exactly what transpires. Generations of critics have questioned whether or not Guinevere’s testimony can be believed. Bonner lays out the case against her: At first, “her words make her appear almost as pitiful as the begging Guinevere of Tennyson.”317 But “this Guinevere is not disabled by remorse. Further, [her words] could indicate a lack of real remorse on her part. Morris’ Guinevere is an actress, playing to the crowd, coaxing and seizing its sympathies.”318 Making several excuses for her actions, Guinevere falls into the trap of “methinks the lady doth protest too much,” losing the reader’s sympathy. Silver sees this as Guinevere’s downfall. “It is Guenevere herself who, in seeking our sympathy, reveals too much about herself for us to believe her innocent; it is her plea of moral confusion, the high point of her argument, that convinces us of her culpability.”319 Silver’s analysis continues, noting that what Guinevere says she will say, and what she ends up saying, are often two different things.320 “She informs us that in internal chaos she has moved beyond the normal riles of human behavior. Even her marriage vow has become ‘a little word/Scarce meant, at all’ for she has forgotten the significance of her marriage.”321

  Her situation is pitiable, yes. Like so many women throughout history, she is stuck in a loveless, arranged marriage that she had little say in and which she yearns to break free of with Lancelot. But she cannot even look outside of marriage for her happiness because the law, as well as cultural morality, forbids it. Rebecca Umland reminds the reader that here, as in Tennyson, “as presiders over hearth and home, women who violated their duties or disrupted the domestic order by sexual indulgence were perceived as the worst possible threat.”322 Morris’ Guinevere knows this, yet she is not afraid to bring up her situation in open court, something Laura Struve praises as previously unthinkable. “Guenevere’s speech is radical because it places a woman’s desires before her husband’s and before society’s interest in enforcing morality.”323

  Guinevere attempts to defend herself by saying she was just a woman playing the part dictated to her by courtly love and the mandate that a knight must fulfill the requests of a lady, for better or for worse.324 She is still proud, deceptive, and defiant like in earlier versions of the legend, but she leaves readers with more questions than answers,325 especially in regard to her sincerity. According to Gossedge, Guinevere’s words should be taken with a grain of salt. “Morris makes her speak her own defence but it is no defence at all, just defiance. She denies the charges, says she has made her choice, that she enjoys and invites onlookers to enjoy her own sensual athleticism, and waits for Lancelot’s rescue.”326

  Lest Guinevere’s reputation be left in any doubt, her closing words seal how she is seen. With a frustrated sneer, she cries, “By God, I will not tell you more today,/Judge any way you will—what matters it?”327 According to Bonner, this “leaves the reader with a picture of the upturned nose and rolling eyes of the Queen. She believes this trial and the concerns of its members to be beneath her…she does not seem concerned about ‘setting things right’ by reuniting with the King and obtaining forgiveness.”328 Bonner goes on to say, “The final vision of Guinevere portrayed by Morris is of a woman who is evil to the core.”329

  Indeed, this is a queen who is not so much defending herself, but manipulating the jury (and thereby the reader) to believe a version of events that best suits her. Her actions are deliberate, meant to evoke drama. As Silver writes, “The very point of the poem is that Guenevere’s defense is not to be fully believed…. In this sense, Morris’ title is ironic.”330

  Is the title meant to indicate that the poem is Morris’ defense of Guinevere or that it is Guinevere’s defense of herself? This is a question many critics ask. The answer may lie somewhere between the two. Some scholars suggest that the ambivalence perceived in Morris’ poem was reflected in the thoughts of the author. Beverly Taylor and Elizabeth Brewer note that the poem “allowed Guinevere to tell her own story, in making her own defense...[because] Morris makes use of an Arthurian theme to give expression to (his own) inner conflict.”331 She also cites Florence Boos’ assertion that Morris’ Guinevere wants “‘liberation—from the crippling social and sexual constraints that closed in on Victorian women like a vise’ as well as for a ‘heroine’s right of self-determination.’”332 Ross agrees, writing that “Morris’ portrait of Guinevere is much more sympathetic than Tennyson’s, presenting her as a romantic individualist rebelling against society’s hypocrisy.”333

  That may be, but he doesn’t give his audience any reason to cheer for Guinevere, instead having her fall back on well-established, negative aspects of her character that are by this time becoming clichéd. Morris’ Guinevere relies upon manipulation and clever lies in order to get her way, a stereotypical portrayal of the female, but one that Laura Struve argues actually gives her strength. “The Queen does more than merely elude the law; she also announces its potential for manipulation.”334 In this way, she can be seen as a role model for other Victorian women who might wish to follow in Guinevere’s footsteps and circumvent the attitudes and conventions that restrained women.

  Regardless of whether or not the poem is meant to mirror larger societal issues, Morris does break
the mold in the ending he assigns to Guinevere. “Morris concludes his poem in an entirely novel way. Guinevere is not locked away to do repentance for her sins. She does not grovel before her king. Moreover, instead of shunning Lancelot and telling him to leave her to her penance as Malory’s Guinevere does, she apparently will welcome him, and, with his help, will escape the condemnation that is planned for her,”335 notes Bonner. In this way, the poem is revolutionary. Not since Chrétien have we seen someone willing to let Guinevere and Lancelot have happiness as a result of their affair. Morris’s poem is groundbreaking and ahead of its time—a harbinger of the relaxing moral standards to come in the twentieth century.

  * * *

  314 Morris, William, The Defence of Guenevere and Other Poems (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1908), 8-10.

  315 Bonner, "Guinevere as Heroine," 8.

  316 Ibid., 61.

  317 Ibid., 62.

  318 Ibid., 63.

  319 Silver, Carole G., “‘The Defence of Guenevere’: A Further Interpretation,” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 9, no. 4 (1969): 696.

  320 Ibid., 701.

  321 Ibid.

  322 Umland, Rebecca, “The Snake in the Woodpile,” 276.

  323 Struve, Laura, “The Public Life and Private Desires of Women in William Morris’s ‘The Defence of Guenevere,” Arthuriana, vol 6.3, (October 3, 1996): 21.

  324 Bonner, "Guinevere as Heroine," 64.

  325 Ibid.,8-9.

  326 Gossedge, "Sixteenth to Nineteenth Centuries," 116.

  327 Morris, The Defence of Guenevere, lines 277-278.

  328 Bonner, "Guinevere as Heroine," 65.

  329 Ibid.

  330 Silver, "A Further Interpretation," 702.

  331 Cited in Falsani, "Parke Godwin's Guenevere," 55.

  332 Falsani, "Parke Godwin's Guenevere," 55-56.

  333 Ross, "The Sublime to the Ridiculous," 62.

  334 Struve, "The Public Life and Private Desires," 25.

  335 Bonner, "Guinevere as Heroine," 65-66.

  CHAPTER ELEVEN

  Guinevere in The Early Twentieth Century and T. H. White

  Arthuriana for a New Age

  After Tennyson and the Victorians reignited the obsession with the Arthurian legend, interest in it only grew. Muriel Whitaker explains why: “The Victorian interest in Arthurian legend persisted into the twentieth century, thanks to lingering Pre-Raphaelitism and an attachment to social and moral values expressed through the image of the medieval knight. Sir Thomas Malory’s Mort D’Arthur remained the chief source for writers and artists, but the Protestant ethic of Tennyson’s Idylls of the King also affected their treatments until mid-century.”336

  According to A Bibliography of Modern Arthuriana (1500-2000), 162 Arthurian novels were published between 1884 and 1983 and nearly 40 short stories. If we dig deeper into each decade, the steady growth is even more apparent, especially from 1950 through 2000. From 1900-1950, less than 50 new Arthurian novels were released, but from 1950-1980, that number more than doubled. Ann Howey breaks it down by decade: “Bibliographies record 23 Arthurian novels published from 1950-59; from 1960-1969, there were 33; from 1970-79, there were 71. This adds up to 127 total in 36 years…For the years 1980-89, bibliographies list 120 examples of long prose fiction and a further 39 short stories. From 1990-1996, the number of short stories has already more than doubled (to 83), while the number of novels stands at 97, about 80% of the total previous decade.”337

  The number of Arthurian books by women also increased sharply in the latter half of the twentieth century. Howey gives the details: “Surveying bibliographies, one finds nine in the 1950s, 13 in the 1960s, then 31 and 48 in the 1970s and 1980s respectively. Since 1990, 38 Arthurian novels have been published by women, 79% of the total of the previous decade.”338 Why this trend is important and what cultural factors may have influenced it will be explored later on when the second half of the twentieth century is examined.

  Maureen Fries, in ‘Trends in the Modern Arthurian Novel’ calls the prevalence of Arthurian prose fiction ‘the most surprising development in the last hundred years’ of the legend’s history.”339 To what should we attribute this rise in popularity? There are many possible explanations, including a post-Tolkien fantasy boom, but one of the strongest is the human desire to use fantasy to escape a negative reality. Between the world wars, the advent of nuclear war, and the sheer number of revolutionary changes that took place in the twentieth century, it stands to reason that people might have been looking to Camelot as a utopia or to King Arthur and Guinevere as heroes who might save them in times of peril. As Raluca Radulescu, professor of medieval literature and English literature at Bangor University, writes in a February 2017 Newsweek article, “In this confusing and sometimes frightening world, audiences seek reassurance in the models of the past. They want a standard of moral integrity and visionary leadership that is inspirational and transformational in equal measure. One that they cannot find in the world around them, but will discover in the stories of King Arthur.”340

  The timeless universality of the themes in the Arthurian legend might also account for the continuing attraction. No matter the year, love, loyalty, might versus right, betrayal, and equality are part of our lives. Radulescu explains this concept:

  The Arthurian revival of the late 19th century…helped put [Arthur] back on the international cultural map by removing the historical aura, and emphasizing the values he stood for…. Moral integrity, loyalty to one’s friends and kin, abiding by the law and defending the weak, form the cornerstone of how Arthurian fellowship has been defined through the centuries. They offer the reassurance that doing the morally right thing is valuable, even if it may bring about temporary defeat.341

  Moreover, the appeal of a boy who came from nothing (or so he thought) to become king mirrors the struggle to find and better oneself, always a popular theme, but especially so in the twentieth century. As unions began to protect the interests of workers and the birth of the middle class342 gave rise to the concept of upward social mobility, more and more people saw Arthur as an example of successful advancement. Mancoff explains: “For the upper middle and upper-class male, hero worship was a potent constructive force; it taught virtue through example. To admire a hero incorporated the desire to strive for heroic belief and action, wedding practical energy to romantic association. The man who could recognize a hero in society could recognize the heroic in himself. And as recognition of the hero is inseparable from identification with the hero, it was central to the construction of contemporary manhood.”343

  Plus, the twentieth century was a time of great archeological discovery in the realm of Arthurian legend, as the plausibility of a historical Arthur gained steam in academic circles. Archeologists such as Leslie Alcock and Geoffrey Ashe kept discoveries consistently in the news and churned out publications that kept all things Arthurian top of mind for authors and the general public alike.344

  As the popularity of the Arthurian legend grew, so did interest in Guinevere. “Both in medieval and modern fiction, the figure of Guinevere personifies the feminine ideal, and in so doing indicates our changing attitudes to women and to sexual morality. In the last hundred years in particular, her character has undergone many changes, some of them startling,”345 writes Brewer. We’ll examine many of these changes in great detail in the coming pages, but for now, it will suffice to note that in the first half of the twentieth century, Guinevere was not treated well at all—perhaps even worse than she was by the Victorians. Whitaker bluntly affirms this notion. “Between 1900 and 1940, most authors and editors exculpated Lancelot by diminishing or denigrating the queen.”346

  In the period of the mid-1950s through the mid-1970s, Arthurian legend went through what i
s known as the “anti-romantic tradition”347 of historical fiction, a movement that emphasized darkness and the brutality of reality in the Dark Ages. Three examples of popular Arthurian works from this time are Henry Treece’s The Great Campaigns (1956) and The Green Man (1966), as well as Peter Vansittart’s Lancelot: A Novel (1978). In these works, Guinevere is a prostitute, who is vain, deceitful, lustful and proud.348 In creating her thus, the authors debase her about as much as a woman can be and give her a personality that is easy to hate, a tradition carried on by one of Arthuriana’s most famous modern authors, T.H. White.

  T. H. White—The Once and Future King

  “Guenever…dressed like a gipsy, entertained like a lodging-house keeper, and kept her lover a secret. On top of this, she was a nuisance. She had no sense of style. She was growing old ungracefully, and she cried or made scenes like a fishwife.”349

  — The Once and Future King by T. H. White

  Even if people who know next to nothing about the Arthurian legend likely have heard of T. H. White’s 1958 book The Once and Future King. It is the source of the Broadway musical and the Hollywood movie Camelot, as well as the Disney movie The Sword in the Stone. It is, in many ways, a retelling of Malory. Guinevere and Lancelot appear in Book Three of the story, “The Ill-Made Knight,” which is primarily about Lancelot. Guinevere is also in Book Four, “The Candle in the Wind,” but is portrayed at a distance.