I must confess myself
ignorant of any early and popular, or "primitive" literature, in
which human virtues, and the human conscience, do not play their
part. Those who object to Tennyson's handling of the great Arthurian
cycle, on the ground that he is too refined and too moral, must
either never have read or must long have forgotten even Malory's
romance. Thus we read, in a recent novel, that Lancelot was an homme
aux bonnes fortunes, whereas Lancelot was the most loyal of lovers.
Among other critics, Mr Harrison has objected that the Arthurian
world of Tennyson "is not quite an ideal world. Therein lies the
difficulty. The scene, though not of course historic, has certain
historic suggestions and characters." It is not apparent who the
historic characters are, for the real Arthur is but a historic
phantasm. "But then, in the midst of so much realism, the knights,
from Arthur downwards, talk and act in ways with which we are
familiar in modern ethical and psychological novels, but which are as
impossible in real mediaeval knights as a Bengal tiger or a Polar
bear would be in a drawing-room." I confess to little acquaintance
with modern ethical novels; but real mediaeval knights, and still
more the knights of mediaeval romance, were capable of very ethical
actions. To halt an army for the protection and comfort of a
laundress was a highly ethical action. Perhaps Sir Redvers Buller
would do it: Bruce did.
Pages:
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118