Book Review: Queen of Camelot

Queen of CamelotI recently read Queen of Camelot by Nancy McKenzie, an epic about Guinevere, Arthur’s wife and queen.  It spans from practically her birth to just after the death of Arthur and the fall of Camelot.  This novel was originally published as two separate books, The Child Queen and The High Queen, and so is 623 pages, but is completely worth it.  Here is the synopsis:

On the night of Guinevere’s birth, a wise woman declares a prophecy of doom for the child: She will be gwenhwyfar, the white shadow, destined to betray her king, and be herself betrayed. Years pass, and Guinevere becomes a great beauty, riding free across Northern Wales on her beloved horse. She is entranced by the tales of the valorous Arthur, a courageous warrior who seems to Guinevere no mere man, but a legend. Then she finds herself betrothed to that same famous king, a hero who commands her willing devotion. Just as his knights and all his subjects, she falls under Arthur’s spell.

At the side of King Arthur, Guinevere reigns strong and true. Yet she soon learns how the dark prophecy will reveal itself. She is unable to conceive. Arthur’s only true heir is Mordred, offspring of a cursed encounter with the witch Morgause. Now Guinevere must make a fateful choice: She decides to raise Mordred, teaching him to be a ruler and to honor Camelot. She will love him like a mother. Mordred will be her greatest joy–and the key to her ultimate downfall.

This novel was masterfully written, as the author sets the story against a historical background, somewhere in the late 5th century.  These circumstances could have happened, had Arthur been a real historical figure.  At the beginning, Britain is divided and having to fight against the Saxons.  Arthur rises to power with his ability to lead the army and strategically defeat them in battle, before his true lineage as heir to Uther Pendragon is revealed.  The Saxons are finally beaten back at the Battle of Badon Hill.  Throughout the book there are tensions between the rather new, but rapidly spreading Christianity, and the old pagan beliefs and the Druids.  Towards the end of the book, Arthur travels to mainland Europe to aid Brittany in fending off Romans.  They call him Riothamus because of his power, just decision-making, and ability to inspire love and devotion in his subjects.   Even the ancient historian Gildas is mentioned.  All of these situations and more are drawn from the records of what and who Arthur may have been, had he existed.

However, McKenzie also uses both main and minor events from the legends and weaves them into the story in a more believable way.  Merlin exists, as well as Nimue, Niniane, and Vivien, but the magic is kept to a minimum and does not interfere with the historical believability of the story.  Arthur does conceive Mordred with his half sister Morgause, but this occurs before he knows of his true identity and he feels extreme guilt for it the rest of his life.  Guinevere is kidnapped by Melwas and is saved by Lancelot, but the circumstances and purpose for it make much more sense than they traditionally do in the legend.  Elaine does seduce Lancelot, but only to spite Guinevere and not because she actually loves Lancelot.  Guinevere is saved from burning at the stake by Lancelot, but she is not sentenced to this fate by Arthur; she has been kidnapped by Druids who attempt to sacrifice her in retaliation to avenge the massacre of some of their priests.  Mordred does become king in Arthur’s absence, but because they all believe him to be dead and not because he is trying to be traitorous.  Arthur asks Guinevere to move to a nunnery towards the end of her life because he wants her to be kept safe, not because she was unfaithful to him.  There are many more instances like this throughout the novel, including those involving Morgan, Excalibur, the Orkney brothers, and Lancelot’s exile.  Overall, the author takes many well-known events from the legends and retells them as more plausible occurrences.

The one aspect I didn’t like as much was the relationship between Lancelot and Guinevere.  I did like that though they loved each other, they were never truly lovers, as their love for the King surpassed their temptations to be unfaithful to him.  However, the romance between them developed far too quickly and never made much sense to me.  I especially found it hard to believe that after Guinevere marries and falls in love with Arthur, she still had any feelings of that sort left for Lancelot.  But I suppose this part of the plot was too ingrained in the legend to be ignored completely, and I am grateful that Guinevere ultimately remained faithful to her husband.

Guinevere herself has always fascinated me as a character.  I really enjoyed her development in this novel, though there were a few things about her that annoyed me at times.  I actually enjoyed her more in the first half of the book, which begins when she is a child and ends not long after her marriage to Arthur.  I thought her good qualities appeared much more in this section; her generosity, humility, honesty, innocence, inner strength, and courage.  Her ability to be a queen and companion to Arthur was definitely developed in this stage.  However, in the second part of the novel I didn’t detect these qualities as much in her actions and thoughts.  This might have been because she seemed completely dependent on both Arthur and Lancelot.  However, there was much about her that was still admirable, especially her desire to be the best companion possible to Arthur and share in his sorrows and joys, just as he shared in hers, and her courage to speak her mind in a world when men dominated society and politics.

I did like the development of her relationship with Mordred.  He was almost as noble a character as Arthur, which is certainly unexpected.  Her desperation and despair at not being able to conceive a child was well developed, and so her bittersweet, motherly love for Mordred fit in perfectly into her need for a child.  The tragic fate that befell him worked out better than I expected it to, aided by a large misunderstanding.

Despite the fact that this was the story of Guinevere, I thought in some cases it was definitely Arthur’s story as well.  A king who was able to unite Britain after centuries of conflict, and whose legend has been passed down through hundreds of generations, certainly must have been an extraordinary person.  McKenzie portrays him as someone who could inspire the love and devotion of all his subjects, despite their prejudices and conflicts.  His humble upbringings allow him to rule without abusing his power.  His inner strength and calm diffuses into those around him.  He truly was a character worthy of the legends and stories about him, and found his perfect match in Guinevere.

I was very impressed by this novel.  McKenzie took a character who has been widely and often unfavorably interpreted through legend, and crafted her into a brave, beautiful, sensitive woman who was capable of ruling alongside such a great figure as King Arthur and ultimately affecting Camelot and all of Britain.

my arthurian shelf:
Abby's book recommendations, liked quotes, book clubs, book trivia, book lists (arthurian shelf)

Advertisements

ARThurian: The Lady of Shalott

The Lady of Shalott, also known as Elaine of Astolat, is one of the most common subjects in Arthurian-inspired artwork.  To understand most interpretations of her, it is important to be familiar with Tennyson’s poem, “The Lady of Shalott.”  In the poem, the Lady of Shalott is for an unknown reason imprisoned in a castle on the island of Shalott, adjacent to Camelot.  She is cursed to weave a tapestry and only see the world through a circular mirror that reflects the real world from the window opposite.  She knows there will be consequences if she looks into the real world, but she knows not what the consequence is.  One day she sees Lancelot through the window and she gives in and looks out her window at his real image, immediately falling in love with him.  Her tapestry unravels from the loom and the mirror cracks.  She leaves the tower and lies in a boat with her name carved in the side, floating down the river to Camelot as she dies.  Most likely it is her watery death and inescapable curse that draws people to her situation most strongly.

Her character in more traditional Arthurian legends is much different.  Many versions exist, including her being manipulated by her father, who convinces her to seduce Lancelot and bind her to him, she ends up falling in love with Lancelot.  Another version consists of her falling in love with Lancelot at a joust and asking him to wear her favor.  Most versions agree that she dies of a broken heart when Lancelot rejects her in favor of Guinevere, and her corpse floats to Camelot in a boat.  She is a flawed character, yet realistic and intriguing.  Maybe this is why artists love to interpret her character, appearance, and demise.

The first set of paintings are clearly depicting Tennyson’s Lady of Shalott, while the rest are most likely referring to Elaine of Astolat, whose fate inspired Tennyson’s character.

The Lady of Shalott

“‘I am Half-Sick of Shadows,’ Said the Lady of Shalott” by John William Waterhouse.  The title line of this piece is from Tennyson’s poem.  She can only view the real world through a circular mirror, and so is only experiencing shadows of reality.  She sees young lovers through the mirror and wishes she could take part in that world; this moment is expressing her awakened desire for love.

“‘I am Half-Sick of Shadows,’ Said the Lady of Shalott” by Sidney Meteyard.  This is also the line from Tennyson’s poem, like Waterhouse’s piece.  The circular mirror can be seen casting a dim reflection of the young lovers in the background.  The darker colors of this piece, as well as her pose, suggest a darker, more sensual tone.

“The Lady of Shalott” by William Maw Egley.  This is also portraying the moment when she glimpses Lancelot in reality, though the curse has yet to wreak its havoc.  Lancelot can be seen through the mirror on the opposite side of the room, and Camelot is visible through the widow at the back.

“The Lady of Shalott Looking at Lancelot” by John William Waterhouse.  This is depicting the moment when she gives in and looks at Lancelot through the window.  We already see the curse is unfolding, as the mirror behind her cracks and the threads from the tapestry entangle her.  Lancelot’s armored head can be seen in the mirror.

“The Lady of Shalott” by William Holman Hunt.  This is also the moment of the curse bearing down upon her, with the cracked mirror, entangling threads, and her hair blowing wildly in some unearthly wind.  Lancelot is also visible through this mirror.  This piece is heavy in symbolism, from the numerous random objects scattered across the floor to the frescoes on the wall.

“The Lady of Shalott” by John William Waterhouse.  This is probably the most well-known paintings of the Lady of Shalott, and is perhaps the only one to depict her still alive in her death boat.  This particular piece is also interesting because the woman pictured looks completely different from the other two paintings in which Waterhouse depicts the Lady of Shalott.  She takes with her the tapestry she has been weaving in her tower for who knows how long, and her name is carved in the prow.  The raw emotion in her face is also evident; the viewer can clearly see the anguish and heartbreak she is experiencing.

“The Lady of Shalott” by Arthur Hughes.  This piece displays the reaction of peasant women, presumably collecting herbs by the river, to the tragic corpse of the lady.  Her paleness, along with her white gown, make her stand out and compare her to the graceful swan swimming alongside her.

“Lady of Shalott” by G. E. Robertson.  This painting depicts the moment her boat reaches Camelot.  The man leaning over her is most likely Lancelot, for he was the first to see her when she reaches Camelot and remarks that she had a lovely face.  In this piece, the Lady of Shalott is also lying on her woven tapestry and is displayed magnificently and tragically in her boat.

________________________________________________________

Elaine of Astolat

“Elaine, or the Lily Maid of Astolat” by Sophie Anderson.  Most images of Elaine focus directly on her death and not on her predicament with Lancelot.  The bargeman is also a common figure in Elaine’s death and is portrayed mourning in this piece.  Elaine’s paleness is perhaps the most striking component, emphasizing both her fairness and her death.

“Elaine Floats Down to Camelot” by Briton Riviere.  This piece is much more peaceful, with a hint of a smile on Elaine’s porcelain-like face, as if she finally found peace and relief to her anguish through death.  The sunrise or sunset also suggests hope or a new beginning.  The bargeman’s contemplative pose also adds to the tone.

“Elaine” by Pollie Clarke.  This is a very romantic depiction of Elaine, adorned with lilles and arriving at the lush river bank.  The knight surveying her is most likely Lancelot.

“Elaine” by John Atkinson Grimshaw.  This piece is very somber and even spooky.  The red light makes the water look red, like blood, and hints at violence and/or chaos.  This contrasts to Elaine’s peaceful expression and white gown, implying she was the victim of a corrupt world.

ARThurian: Intro

Forgive the pun.  I couldn’t help myself.

Anyways, I have decided to use artistic interpretations to illustrate the many themes, characters, and events of Arthurian legends.

The topic Arthurian art is so expansive I have a hard time knowing where to start.  Really there are three main components:  Medieval art, which would consist of illuminations of the manuscripts that first developed Arthurian legends; the Pre-Raphaelite movement, which abounded in paintings of Camelot; and illustrations of more modern retellings of King Arthur’s story.  The Medieval illuminations are much harder to find, especially on the internet, as they are contained in very old, very valuable manuscripts inaccessible to the average person.  However, more modern interpretations of Arthurian legends come in copious amounts.

The Pre-Raphaelites are my personal favorites.  They literally dominate the scope of Arthurian-inspired art.  This was an art movement in the 19th century that sought to return to the classical style and content of art, especially like the Italian artists preceding Raphael.  Their inspiration was mainly derived from mythology, the Bible, and the Middle Ages.  Naturally, Arthurian legends were large components of this.

In the next few posts I will separate pieces by subject matter so it is easier to compare styles and interpretations of different characters and events in the legends.  Most paintings I will show are from the 19th century and early 20th century, as this is when the Arthurian revival was at its strongest.  They will also be mostly stand-alone, as in not commissioned to illustrate a book of Arthurian legends.  This allows the artist more freedom, and therefore opens up a wider variety of interpretations.

The Historic Arthur

The greatest thing about Arthuriana is the mystery it is cloaked in.  The line between history and legend is fuzzy and at times incomprehensible.  Set right in the heart of the Dark Ages, after Roman occupation and before the Medieval influx of record keepers and historians, very little is known about the Britain Arthur would have ruled in, and even less is known about the man himself.  Did such a man actually exist?  Or was he a symbol of many great rulers of the time?  I have found a wide variety of opinions and arguments of this subject from different historians, so here is what I have comprehensively gathered.

From Nennius’ 8th century Historia Brittonum

Although the culture and setting of the legendary Arthur is usually associated with the Middle Ages (thanks to Geoffrey of Monmouth and Sir Thomas Malory), it is generally agreed upon that the historical Arthur most likely existed in the late 5th century or early 6th.  However, he does not actually appear in historical manuscripts until 400 years later.  The two accepted records written closer to his time, in the 6th and 8th centuries, do not mention a leader by the name of Arthur, but do mention a strong war-leader who united British leaders against Saxon invasions which allowed fifty years of peace.  Of course, that cannot entirely rule him out of existence since so many documents from that time have been lost and so few are still remaining.

Monmouth’s interpretation of a 5th century King Arthur

The earliest mention of an “Arthur” is in Nennius’ 8th century Historia Brittonum, in which he defeats the Saxons in twelve different battles.  Each battle is given a site, all of which have historic parallels, and the last one being on Badon Hill.  This is also the legendary battle in which Arthur defeats the Saxons once and for all and brings Britain into a time of peace.  Thus, we see how the history affects the legends, whether or not that history is accurate.

The first comprehensive development of Arthur as a powerful king of early Britain is in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12th century History of the Kings of Britain.  Monmouth’s chronicle provides the bridge between the vague historical figure and the legendary King Arthur.

Many believe, and I agree with this idea, that King Arthur is based on more than one historical figure.  Lucius Artorius Castus was a 2nd century Roman officer who was stationed at Hadrian’s Wall (now in modern-day Scotland).  This name could have been carried over to other 5th century British leaders.  Ambrosius Aurelianus, or Aurelius Ambrosius, was a powerful 5th century king in West Britain.  His parents are referred to as noble, mostly likely Roman royalty.  He was feared by the ruler Vortigern and fought Saxons, and is commonly known to have been a king over all other Briton kings.  In legend, Ambrosius overthrows Vortigern, is the son of Constantine, and the brother of Uther Pendragon, which would make him Arthur’s uncle.  However, it is very possible that he is the basis for Arthur himself.  There is also a British king mentioned in 5th century texts from the mainland (modern-day France), referred to as “Riothamus.”  This name means “supreme king,” or “king above all,” and is possibly referring to Ambrosius.  He was thought to be an impartial, honorable, compassionate ruler.  Mainland manuscripts report him as sailing across the channel to help the emperor Anthemius fight the Gauls.

A helmet that would have been worn by a 5th century Briton war-leader or high ranking officer

The root of Arthur’s name also gives clues as to his origin.  “Arth” is the Brythonic name for “bear,” while “ursus” is the Latin translation.  During the 5th century, names were often composed of both Brythonic and Latin roots, so his name could have easily been “Arthursus”, shortened to “Arthur.”  Many believe this could refer to any powerful king of the time who was nicknamed “the Bear King.”  This opens many new possibilities to interpretations of a historical Arthur.

So who was Arthur, really?  He could have been the Roman Artorius, misplaced in the 5th century.  He could have been Ambrosius, but named after the earlier Artorius.  He could have been any powerful king in the 5th or 6th centuries that was nicknamed “the bear.”  He could have merely been fabricated by a few creative historians.  I doubt the world shall ever know.

And yet that is the beauty of it all.  The mystery, the speculation, the possibility.  That is what has allowed Arthurian legends to become timeless, intriguing, and so incredibly influential.  As long as humanity doesn’t know for certain that Arthur never existed, he could have existed, and therefore, he did.

Genealogy

This perfectly summarizes the situation:

This is how I feel as I’ve been researching Arthurian family trees and the relationships between characters.  There are so many interconnecting relationships and different interpretations that I have been unable to find one that I feel encompasses everything.  Besides maybe this one above that I can’t even read.  So I have decided just to collect the ones I find that are the most coherent and common, and at the end of my study I will make my own, incorporating everything I have learned.  Here are the most helpful I have found so far:

These first two are from Nancy McKenzie’s Arthurian novels and are my favorite so far.  The first one concerns Arthur’s line, while the second relates to Guinevere’s line.

These three are from the Timeless Myths website, which has many other interpretations of the Arthurian genealogy and shows the evolution of the different relationships.  The ones I used are the most recent and were developed after the Vulgate Arthurian cycle was written in the 13th century.  The first one is the line of King Arthur, the second is the line of Lancelot and other knights, and the last is the line of Cornwall, which relates to the stories of Tristan and Isolde.

This last one you will definitely need to click on to read.  It is about as complicated as the very first image, but a bit more organized.  This will be a good one for me to refer to when I come across new characters and relationships.

There are obviously some discrepancies between these genealogies, but I feel like they give a fairly comprehensive view of King Arthur’s family tree.

Untangling the Web

What do I think when I hear “Arthurian?”  Round table, witchcraft, sword in stone, adultery, knights, Camelot.  Sometimes I think of Monty Python, or the Disney cartoon, or Julia Ormond and Sean Connery.  I feel relatively familiar with the subject, but there is always an element of confusion that goes along with these thoughts.  I know the basic characters: Arthur, Merlin, Guinevere, Lancelot, Morgan le Fay.  But there are always those more obscure individuals that pop up every so often that throw the standard plot into chaos: Elaine, Morgause, Igraine, Pellinore, Isolde, Mordred.  Where exactly do they fit?  What exactly happens in these legends that have been added to, embellished, and passed down through centuries upon centuries?

These are questions that led to me choose this topic for a research project.  I realize that some of these questions may not have answers.  That’s the problem with legends: there is no one right answer.  But that is also the intriguing thing about legends.  I want to explore all the different possibilities of these stories and how they actually relate to real events from history.

Examining these legends should also give me a good amount of insight into British culture and tradition.  These legends played a large role in and continue to contribute to British literature, art, and film.  Being able to take all of this in together will not just be exceedingly interesting, but also enlightening.

Lancelot and Guinevere by Herbert James Draper.  Did I mention there is bucketloads of beautiful Arthurian artwork out there, especially from my personal favorite, John William Waterhouse.  And Dante Gabriel Rossetti.  I will definitely be having multiple posts to come with some of their lovely art.