Judgment scene in Oenone

“Oenone” is a wonderful poem written by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. It tells the story of the Greek mythological character Oenone and her tragic life. Perhaps the most important part of the poem is the judgment scene, where the golden apple is introduced, and Paris must choose between the three goddesses who desire it.

Paris decided to give the apple to Aphrodite, who promised him that in return, she would ensure he would have the most beautiful and loving wife in Greece. The judgment scene is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it occurs at a crucial moment in the poem. Up until that point, the poem focuses on Oenone’s sadness, as she has already been abandoned by Paris. Understanding the background of the story, which the judgment scene provides, is essential for the reader. 

The poem reaches its climax in the judgment scene, where Paris’ decision sets the course for what follows. It is at this moment that Paris resolves to leave Oenone and pursue Helen as his wife. The judgment scene also reflects Tennyson’s idea about 19th-century England, particularly the Victorian era. Hera symbolizes power, much like Queen Victoria. During the Victorian age, the English people made significant advancements in science and knowledge, which Pallas Athena represents. Simultaneously, there was an increasing emphasis on beauty and superficial appearances, as embodied by Aphrodite. Thus, the judgment scene highlights the dilemma faced by the Victorian people, who were torn between these competing values during Tennyson’s time.

The judgment scene also provides Tennyson with an opportunity to impart moral lessons within the poem. Although “Oenone” is based on a mythological character, it carries important moral messages. The poem suggests that we should not be overly driven by passion, especially when it comes to love and marriage. Oenone suffered because she was too passionate about Paris, ignoring his background and character. Similarly, Paris, consumed by his passion for Helen, fails to recognize that Oenone is a good wife. His decision to leave Oenone for Helen was an act of folly, underscoring the dangers of letting passion override reason.

“Oenone” is a beautiful dramatic monologue in which Oenone serves as the speaker. She reflects on a critical moment in her life, as is typical in dramatic monologues, where characters often share their experiences during pivotal situations. In this poem, the judgment scene plays a key role in helping us understand Oenone’s background and the circumstances that have led to her current state.

Oenone is enduring a critical situation and is contemplating suicide. The judgment scene reveals the shock she experienced as she witnessed Paris leaving her to accept Aphrodite’s gift of another woman. This betrayal is heartbreaking for any woman or wife in any era. The judgment scene allows us to deeply empathize with Oenone’s pain and understand the extent of her suffering.

The judgment scene also introduces several key characters, particularly the three goddesses. These goddesses were incredibly powerful and often manipulated the lives of humans, reflecting a common belief in ancient Greece. However, in this scene, we also see negative traits, especially in Aphrodite. She tempts Paris with the promise of a beautiful woman, ultimately leading to the destruction of both Paris and Oenone’s lives.

The judgment scene in “Oenone” is particularly interesting, as such scenes are more commonly found in dramas, like in The Merchant of Venice. The judgment scene in The Merchant of Venice is renowned and has become iconic. Although “Oenone” is not a lengthy poem, it still features a compelling and significant judgment scene, adding depth and intrigue to the narrative. 

Treatment of Arthurian legend

“Morte d’Arthur” is the final part of Alfred Lord Tennyson’s epic poem Idylls of the King. In this section, the poet narrates the death of King Arthur and the fate of his sword, Excalibur. The Victorian era is marked by significant scientific advancements, but it is also characterized by a sense of restlessness. With the rise of science, many people began to lose faith in religion. King Arthur remains a central figure in England’s history.

The true understanding of materialism versus myth in “Morte d’Arthur” is revealed in the scene between Arthur and Sir Bedivere. Mortally wounded, Arthur commands Bedivere to throw Excalibur back into the lake from which it came. Bedivere runs to the lake, ready to fulfill his duty, when the sight of Excalibur’s hilt catches his eye. The hilt “twinkled with diamond sparks, / Myriads of topaz-lights, and jacinth-work / Of subtlest jewellery” (56-58). Initially prepared to throw the sword into the lake, Bedivere is instead captivated by its beauty. Unable to part with it, he chooses to conceal Excalibur “there in the many-knotted waterflags” (62-63) and returns to the king, lying about the sword’s fate.

Arthur immediately recognizes the lie and gently scolds Bedivere, reminding him that it is a “shameful thing for men to lie” (78). He orders Bedivere once again to cast the sword into the lake. Bedivere returns to the lake but is once more captivated by the “wonder of the hilt” (85). He rationalizes his disobedience, speaking of the sword in purely materialistic terms, describing it as a “precious thing... which might have pleased the eye of many men” (89-91). He imagines it displayed in a treasure house or at a tournament, disregarding its sanctity and mystery. Most significantly, he disobeys his king. 

Arthur does not respond kindly to Bedivere’s second betrayal, and he seems to grasp the motive behind it fully. He condemns Bedivere as “miserable and unkind, untrue, / Unknightly, traitor-hearted...” (119-120) and laments that Bedivere would “betray me for the precious hilt; Either from lust of gold, or like a girl / Valuing the giddy pleasure of the eyes” (126-128). While Arthur forgave Bedivere’s first offense as a crime of impulse, the second was a deliberate act of rationalization that the king could not condone. Bedivere consciously chose to keep the sword, a symbol of material perfection, over obeying his king’s orders. In this, Tennyson offers a critique of the materialism that permeated his own culture, illustrating that while the allure of material perfection is tempting, it must ultimately be set aside in favor of something deeper. 

Political satire in Piers Plowman

The first thing that comes to mind about William Langland after reading the poem Piers Plowman is his courage. We have to keep in mind that in those days, monarchy was prevalent in England, and it was not like the monarchy of today. Then, people could be executed for trivial reasons, and the king had absolute power. There was no sign of democracy, and giving any speech against the king or rulers would be considered treason in many cases and severely punished. So, the way William Langland satirized in Piers Plowman is truly remarkable. We will not see many examples of satire in England from that time. Piers Plowman cannot be completely called a political satire because he did not only satirize politics but also common people, the church, and everything else.

The political situation in England at that time was somewhat troubled. The war with France had been going on for many years, and the effects of the hostility with France impacted life in England as a whole. However, simultaneously, as a result of this war with France, a sense of nationalism developed among the people of England, leading to the establishment of a new system. The foundation of the new England that we later see during Elizabeth’s reign probably began in the time of William Langland and Geoffrey Chaucer. Gradually, the power of the king was decreasing while the power of influential landlords was increasing. Parliament was the meeting place of influential landlords, and the power of Parliament started to increase somewhat during this period.

Since the king had all the power, he would often become a tyrant. William Langland was against this and called for more power to be given to the common people. In doing so, he highlighted the poor conditions at the royal court of that time and mentioned a fable where mice wanted to tie a bell around the cat’s neck. Here, the mice represent the common people who want to control the cat or the king, but tying a bell around the cat’s neck is indeed a difficult task.

The effects of bad government were felt by common people. When a ruler of a country cannot govern properly, various problems arise, and the economic condition of the people deteriorates, thus increasing corruption. He talked about beggars who begged as a hobby. Many of them could support their own families, but still, they used to beg because they made more profit from it. These beggars used to drink alcohol and had no purpose in their lives. Those who were unemployed, businessmen, or merchants would give poor-quality goods to people, and by doing this, the condition of common people worsened, but these unemployed individuals and merchants were becoming rich. It is depicted here that the ruling system at that time was not good, and the king, along with his ministers and officials, was not very successful in controlling the people of different classes and professions in society.

In this poem, William Langland talks about the common people who were illiterate and not very enthusiastic about the development of society. They would be tempted by greed very easily, and in this way, a kind of unrest prevailed in society. In fact, Langland, by highlighting the problems of the state or the bad political conditions, meant to imply that, as a result, issues were emerging in both the church and social life. 

In England, in those days, writing political satire was very difficult because the king had so much power. The judicial system was not as strong as it is today, and there was hardly any personal freedom or freedom of speech. In those days, there were no daily newspapers, radio, or television. As a result, the rulers could easily become tyrannical if they wanted, and there was no way to restrain them. Therefore, Langland wanted a system of governance where common people would have more rights and be less oppressed. Although Piers Plowman cannot be called a complete political satire, he satirized the political conditions of his time in various ways.