This essay compares Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur with Alfred Lord Tennyson's Idylls of the King, two foundational retellings of the Arthurian legend. The paper examines how each author uses the mythic kingdom of Camelot for different purposes: Malory focuses on the deeds and moral struggles of individual knights — particularly Lancelot — and the ethics of courtly love drawn from French sources, while Tennyson elevates King Arthur himself as a symbol of ideal English masculine virtue and national identity. The essay traces how the shift in Arthur's centrality between the two works reflects their differing source traditions and cultural concerns.
The paper demonstrates source-tradition analysis: rather than treating both authors as equally original, it situates Malory within the French romance tradition to explain why his priorities differ from Tennyson's. This kind of contextual framing strengthens comparative literary arguments by explaining why differences exist, not merely cataloguing them.
The essay opens with a thesis-driven introduction contrasting the two works' purposes, then moves through thematic comparisons: Arthur's relative centrality, the role of French source material, and the specific case of Lancelot and Guinevere. It closes by restating the core distinction — Malory's saga is ultimately about knights, while Tennyson's is about a king and his nation. The argument builds logically from general claims to specific textual evidence.
In his Le Morte d'Arthur, Thomas Malory relates a prose saga of a mythic, law-abiding yet still military-based creation of a fantasy kingdom called Camelot. Malory's Camelot is a world still negotiating a tenuously evolving rule of law and the loyalty of its Christian knights. In contrast, Idylls of the King by the Victorian poet Alfred Lord Tennyson uses the religious, mythic, and moral elements of Camelot to create a fable of proper English masculine behavior, rather than a more general tale of how a great king should rule.
Both authors' stories revolve around the central figure of King Arthur. Yet only in Tennyson's later rendering of the Camelot legends does the character and presence of Arthur become truly paramount. Malory's tales use Arthur more as a figurehead or showpiece — Arthur begins the tales, but he figures less centrally as a moral authority in the action and evolution of the narrative than he does in the Idylls. In Malory, the evolving character of the knights predominates over the internal struggles of Arthur himself. Malory's tales are concerned with the deeds of knights such as Sir Gawain, Sir Lancelot, and other of Arthur's sworn servants.
Tennyson crafts poems that give greater significance to the coming of Arthur at the earlier parts of the saga and to the implications of Arthur for England. Above all, the Idylls of the King is a tale of Arthur and England, while Malory's saga, despite its title, is not truly about "The Death of Arthur" but rather about how Arthurian ideals impact the lives of Arthur's knights. The distinction is fundamental: Malory's Camelot belongs to its knights, while Tennyson's Camelot belongs to its king and to the nation he embodies.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.