Maid Marian in Victorian Penny Dreadfuls: A Proto-Feminist?

A paper read at the Women in Print Conference, Chetham’s Library, Manchester 20 May 2016

Header image scanned from my personal copy of J. H. Stocqueler’s Maid Marian the Forest Queen (1849)  – unless otherwise indicated, all images have been scanned from books in my personal collection.


Penny Tinkler writes that ‘the study of popular literature, in particular novels and periodicals, has contributed important dimensions the history of girls and women in England during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’. [1] Studying popular literature is important in discussions of gender history because popular literature projected gender ideals to their readers. One of these ideals was that women should be the ‘the Angel in the House’, confined almost exclusively to the domestic sphere. When it comes to Robin Hood novels, however, representations of Marian differ from typical Victorian gender norms. This paper analyses successive portrayals of Maid Marian in nineteenth-century penny bloods/dreadfuls. The novels considered in this paper are: Pierce Egan the Younger’s Robin Hood and Little John; or, the Merry Men of Sherwood Forest which was serialised between 1838 and 1840; Joaquim Stocqueler’s Maid Marian, the Forest Queen which was serialised in 1849; the anonymously authored Little John and Will Scarlet (1865); and George Emmett’s Robin Hood and the Outlaws of Sherwood Forest which was first published as a three volume novel in 1869, and later reprinted as a penny dreadful in 1885. This paper will show how penny dreadful authors represented Maid Marian as a strong and independent female figure. But this paper will also ask why, when nearly every representation of Maid Marian in penny dreadfuls represents her as an emancipated proto-feminist woman, [2] no female authors ever adopted her.

Illustration from J. H. Stocqueler’s Maid Marian (1849)

Context: Maid Marian before 1800

In the earliest Robin Hood texts, Maid Marian is entirely absent. She appears nowhere, for instance, in the fifteenth-century poems A Gest of Robyn Hode, Robin Hood and the Potter, Robin Hood and the Monk, or Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne. [3] In fact, the first clear association of Robin with a woman named Marian was in Tudor May Day celebrations. [4] From the May Day celebrations she made her way into two late Elizabethan plays written by Anthony Munday entitled The Downfall of Robert, Earle of Huntington, and The Death of Robert, Earle of Huntingdon, written between 1597 and 1598. Following Munday’s plays, Marian appears as Robin’s wife in Ben Jonson’s play The Sad Shepherd; or, A Tale of Robin Hood, which was written in 1641. From then on, Marian became fixed as Robin Hood’s love interest. She appears in Martin Parker’s poem, A True Tale of Robin Hood, which was first printed in 1632, and in the late seventeenth-century ballad Robin Hood and Maid Marian. [5] However, ballads featuring Marian do not appear to have been very popular and went quickly out-of-print. [6] This is not because audiences did not warm to her as a character. It is rather as a result of the fact that the ballads featuring her have a ‘complete lack of any literary merit’, according to the Robin Hood scholars R. B. Dobson and J. Taylor. [7] Another reason for this may be that, in the seventeenth century ballad tradition, Robin Hood was known to have had another love interest – a lady called Clorinda, Queen of the Shepherdesses. Clorinda appears in a widely printed ballad entitled Robin Hood’s Birth, Breeding, Valour, and Marriage to Clorinda, which was first printed in the Sixth Part of John Dryden’s Miscellanies, published in 1716. [8]

Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe published in 1819, which is, in my opinion, the greatest literary work to feature Robin Hood, does not include Maid Marian. In Ivanhoe Robin of Locksley has to be celibate in order to concentrate on saving the nation. [9] Neither does Marian appear in the two volume novel Robin Hood: A Tale of the Olden Time also published in 1819. [10] In that novel Robin’s love interest is an aristocratic lady called Claribel. Instead, Marian’s big break came in a now little-known novella by Thomas Love Peacock entitled Maid Marian published in 1822. It is In his novel, Marian is a headstrong, powerful woman who challenges established gender roles, [11] in fact it is rumoured that the character of Marian was based upon Peacock’s friend, Mary Shelley. [12] In the novel, Marian disregards the wishes of her father by joining Robin in the woods, [13] is fond of traditionally masculine pastimes such as hunting, [14] and is bored when confined to the domestic sphere of life. She declares at one point that: ‘thick walls, dreary galleries, and tapestried chambers were indifferent to me’. [15] Peacock thus set the tone for subsequent portrayals of Maid Marian in literature.

Representations of Marian in Penny Serials

Robin’s first entry into the world of Victorian penny bloods came with Pierce Egan the Younger’s Robin Hood and Little John. He was a prolific novelist, and after Scott and Peacock is perhaps one of the better authors to have adapted the legend of Robin Hood. The idea of class struggle, although not fully articulated, is present within Egan’s novel, for he says that there are ‘two classes’ under whom the poor suffer (the poor are represented by the Anglo-Saxon serfs).[16] Egan’s vision of Sherwood society is truly egalitarian: Robin is elected as the leader of the downtrodden Anglo-Saxon serfs, [17] while Little John also has to be elected as his lieutenant. [18] Whilst critics such as Stephen Knight have interpreted Egan’s Robin Hood as a gentrified and conservative text, [19] it is more likely that, given the democratic ideals present within Egan’s Robin Hood, as well as his Wat Tyler (1840) and Adam Bell (1842), his novel was a radical text. [20]

Egan Robin Hood
Pierce Egan the Younger’s Robin Hood and Little John (1840 – 1850 Edn.)

In the novel, Marian is committed to the democratic ideals of the Sherwood Forest society. Marian is first introduced to the reader as Matilda, but when she goes to live with Robin in the forest, her name changes to Marian. Egan explains the reason for this in the novel, saying that it was ‘a request she had made that all should call her thus, rather than they should think her birth or previous state above theirs’. [21] In contrast to the other female characters, Marian is made of sterner stuff, displaying fortitude and strength in the face of danger. She is a skilled archer, and able to hold her own against the rest of the outlaws in archery competitions. [22] This is in contrast to how Egan portrays other women in his novel: the other ladies are typical ‘damsels in distress’ – one character called Maude faints frequently at the first sign of trouble, [23] while another character, Christabel, has ‘scarce ever been from her chamber’. [24] Apart from Marian, then, the women in late medieval society are portrayed as thoroughly Victorian.

Title Page: J. H. Stocqueler’s Maid Marian (1849)

Egan’s Robin Hood was immensely successful, going through at least five editions. It also inspired another novel authored by Joaquim Stocqueler entitled Maid Marian, the Forest Queen (1849). In the first half of the novel, Marian is the central character. Robin is away fighting the Crusades in the Holy Land with King Richard, and it is Marian who has been placed in charge of the outlaw band in Robin’s absence. The reader first encounters Marian alone in the forest, attired in a male forester’s outfit. [25] In keeping with Egan’s and Peacock’s portrayals of Marian, in Stocqueler’s novel she is skilled in the use of the bow and arrow. [26] She enthusiastically participates in hunting with her fellow outlaws, [27] and at one point even wrestles with a wild boar. [28] These vigorous activities do not make her unfeminine, however, and Stocqueler says that she was blessed with both ‘gentleness and firmness, feminine grace and masculine intrepidity’. It is because of these qualities that Stocqueler says that all women should strive to be like Maid Marian: active, brave, independent. [30]

Little John Will Scarlet
Anon. Little John and Will Scarlet (1865) – From Nineteenth-Century Collections Online

It is a similar case in the anonymously authored Little John and Will Scarlet. The novel is basically a rehash of Egan’s tale. There are two heroines in this serial, Eveline and Marian, and they are both expertly skilled with a bow and arrow, and do not flinch from killing people in self-defence. Eveline, for instance, rescues Will Scarlet by shooting a Norman with a crossbow. [31] During a battle between the outlaws and a horde of Norman soldiers, Marian saves Robin by killing a Norman who was about to stab Robin with his sword. This event, according to the author, is proof that ‘women [are] our best and safest shield from danger’. [32] The outlaws need women in their band: they are not there for decoration, but play an active role in the outlaws’ activities.

Aldine Robin Hood Library (c.1900)

In contrast to the examples discussed above, George Emmett’s Robin Hood and the Archers of Merrie Sherwood presents Marian as a typical Victorian lady. She is delicate, and does not have the independence of mind that previous incarnations of Marian do, exclaiming at one point that ‘I know but little, my tongue is guided by my heart’. [33] She often requires rescuing by Robin from the clutches of the Sheriff, [34] and has a habit of getting captured by Norman soldiers travelling through the forest, [25] and from wild animals in the forest. [36] In Emmett’s novel it is the male characters who participate in the best adventures, and it is clear when reading the novel that it is the first Robin Hood story to be written specifically for boys. [37] In other adventures written for boys, Marian is present but often she is only a background character, as is the case with Aldine’s Robin Hood Library which were a series of 32 page pamphlets published between 1901 and 1902. When Marian is present, she more often than not requires rescuing from the Sheriff’s castle. [38] It appears that when the legend of Robin Hood is adapted specifically for a young male readership, writers left little room for free-spirited and independent Marian to appear in the text.

Emmett's Robin Hood
George Emmett’s Robin Hood and the Archers of Sherwood Forest (1885 Edn.)


The Emmett novel and the Aldine Robin Hood Library notwithstanding, it is clear that novelists enjoyed portraying Marian as a free-spirited, brave woman. When Egan, Emmett, and Stocqueler were writing in the early-to-mid Victorian period, the ideal of domesticity had reached its zenith. The idea of the Angel in the House was central to the image of Victorian moral society, [39] but in Marian there was a heroine who differed from Victorian gender expectations. She is out in the public sphere, actively assisting her husband. In fact, as John Tosh notes, ‘the doctrine of separate spheres […] has been more dogmatically asserted by modern scholars than it ever was by the Victorians themselves’, [40] a point which has also been echoed by Amanda Vickery. [41] June Hannam similarly notes that, ‘far from confining themselves to the home, a significant minority of women in the nineteenth century took an active role in public life’. [42] The representations of Maid Marian that appear during the nineteenth century are perhaps an example of this: the male writers who authored Robin Hood novels thought that headstrong and independent Marian was a better ideal of femininity.

FullSizeRender[3] (2)
Marian Hunting a Wild Boar – Illustration from Stocqueler’s Maid Marian (1849)

Just because Marian is portrayed as an active heroine, however, does not mean that she represents a woman that is fully emancipated from patriarchal restrictions upon her life. This is perhaps a consequence of the fact that it was male writers depicting her in their novels. Egan was much too concerned with politics in his novel, and gender issues appear to have taken a back seat. Stocqueler’s novel is interesting, however: Marian is a free-spirited woman while Robin is away on Crusade. When he returns, Marian becomes a typical ‘Victorian’ lady: she becomes weak and impressionable, [43] and almost kills all of the outlaws after she is beguiled by a witch who lives in the forest to administer an elixir to them. In fact, in Stocqueler’s portrayal of the witch there is an example of when female independence can apparently go too far. The witch has poisoned all of her previous husbands, and now lives alone. Poisoning in the nineteenth century was assumed to be a gendered crime, even if actual statistics prove this myth wrong. [44] Nevertheless, women who poisoned men were seen as perversions of ideal femininity. [45] And the witch is proud of her independence, declaring at one point that:

I am monarch in my own right – free, independent, absolute! – free to go where I will and when I will – unburthened by domestics and guards – mistress of the birds of the air and the beasts and reptiles which crawl at my feet – the arbiter of life and death. [46]

Her poisonous machinations know no social rank either, evident when Minnie exclaims: ‘peer or peasant, baron or boor, they have all had a taste of Minnie’s craft’. [47] Marian is an example of good femininity: she is independent, but only to a point – she still requires Robin’s leadership in most matters. Minnie, on the other hand, is what happens when women supposedly are allowed too much freedom.


It cannot have escaped people’s notice that all of these authors were male, and thus the paradox here is this: why did female authors not adapt Maid Marian as one of their heroes? The reason that later women writers, particularly those of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, never adapted Maid Marian is because, despite her relative freedom and independence, she is only ever represented in relation to the other sex. Her whole life revolves around her husband, Robin Hood. This is something common to many fictitious heroines, and Virginia Woolf remarked in A Room of One’s Own (1929) something similar, to the effect that ‘all the great women of fiction’, for example, she concluded that they were ‘too simple’ because they were ‘not only seen by the other sex, but seen only in relation to the other sex. And how small a part of a woman’s life is that.’ [48] Marian was never her own woman, and could never do as she pleased.

Maid Marian was usually depicted in nineteenth-century street literature as a quasi-feminist woman. At a time when the Victorian ideology of domesticity was at its height, Marian was a woman who shunned the private sphere and went out into the world. But there were several qualifications to this: Marian is independent only inasmuch as Robin allows her to be, and her independence, indeed her own world, revolves around her husband. Stocqueler’s novel is especially interesting, for Marian is contrasted with the witch, a woman who is independent but is a perverted form of Victorian femininity. Thus although at first glance Marian should have been an ideal figure nineteenth-century women writers, especially feminist ones, but the reality is that she is far from an ideal feminist icon.


[1] Penny Tinkler, ‘Women and Popular Literature’ in Women’s History: Britain, 1850-1945 Ed. June Purvis (London: UCL Press, 1995), 131-156 (133).

[2] Stephanie Barczewski, Myth and National Identity in Nineteenth-Century Britain: The Legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 192.

[3] Critical editions of these poems are available in R. B. Dobson & J. Taylor (eds.), Rymes of Robyn Hood: An Introduction to the English Outlaw 3rd Edn. (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1997) and Stephen Knight & Thomas Ohlgren, Robin Hood and Other Outlaw Tales (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 2000).

[4] James C. Holt, Robin Hood 2nd Edn. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1989), 34.

[5] See Dobson & Taylor, Rymes of Robyn Hood, 176-178.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] See Knight & Ohlgren, Robin Hood and Other Outlaw Tales, 527-540.

[9] Walter E. Simeone, ‘The Robin Hood of Ivanhoe’ The Journal of American Folklore 74: 293 (1961), 230-234 (231).

[10] Anon. Robin Hood: A Tale of the Olden Time 2 Vols. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1819).

[11] Marilyn Butler, Peacock Displayed: A Satirist in his Context (London: Routledge, 1979), 151.

[12] Stephen Knight, Reading Robin Hood: Content, Form and Reception in the Outlaw Myth (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015), 127.

[13] Thomas Love Peacock, Maid Marian and Crochet Castle Ed. George Saintsbury (London: MacMillan, 1895), 29.

[14] Peacock, Maid Marian, 20 & 36.

[15] Peacock, Maid Marian, 84.

[16] Pierce Egan the Younger, Robin Hood and Little John, or, The Merry Men of Sherwood Forest (London: W. S. Johnson, 1840), 191.

[17] Egan, Robin Hood, 144-146.

[18] Egan, Robin Hood, 146.

[19] Stephen Knight, Robin Hood: A Mythic Biography (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), 128.

[20] Stephen Basdeo, ‘Radical Medievalism: Pierce Egan the Younger’s Robin Hood, Wat Tyler, and Adam Bell’ in Leeds Working Papers in Victorian Studies Volume 15: Imagining the Victorians Eds. Stephen Basdeo and Lauren Padgett (Leeds: LCVS, 2016), 50-68.

[21] Egan, Robin Hood, 101.

[22] Egan, Robin Hood, 191.

[23] Egan, Robin Hood, 94.

[24] Egan, Robin Hood, 88.

[25] J. H. Stocqueler, Maid Marian, the Forest Queen, being a companion to “Robin Hood” (London: G. Pierce, 1850), 2.

[26] Stocqueler, Maid Marian, 40 & 139.

[27] Stocqueler, Maid Marian, 53.

[28] Stocqueler, Maid Marian, 40.

[29] Stocqueler, Maid Marian, 26.

[30] Stocqueler, Maid Marian, 205.

[31] Anon. Little John and Will Scarlet, or, The Outlaws of Sherwood Forest (London, 1865), 11.

[32] Anon. Little John and Will Scarlet, 60.

[33] George Emmett, Robin Hood and the Archers of Merrie Sherwood (London: Hogarth House, 1885), 76.

[34] Emmett, Robin Hood and the Archers of Merrie Sherwood, 176.

[35] Emmett, Robin Hood and the Archers of Merrie Sherwood, 251.

[36] Emmett, Robin Hood and the Archers of Merrie Sherwood, 201.

[37] Kevin Carpenter, ‘Robin Hood in Boys’ Weeklies to 1914’ in Popular Children’s Literature in Britain Eds. Julia Briggs, Dennis Butts, M. O. Grenby (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 47-68 (54).

[38] Carpenter, ‘Robin Hood in Boys’ Weeklies to 1914’, 58.

[39] John Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Harlow: Pearson, 2005), 135.

[40] John Tosh, A Man’s Place: Masculinity and the Middle-Class Home in Victorian England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 77.

[41] Amanda Vickery, ‘Golden Age to Separate Spheres? A Review of the Categories and Chronology of English Women’s History’ in The Feminist History Reader Ed. Sue Morgan (London: Routledge, 2006), 74-86 (77).

[41] June Hannam, ‘Women and Politics’ in Women’s History: Britain, 1850-1945 (London: UCL Press, 1995), 217-246 (218).

[43] Stocqueler, Maid Marian, 132.

[44] See Katherine Watson, Poisoned Lives: English Poisoners and their Victims (London: Hambledon, 2004).

[45] Radojka Startup, ‘Damaging Females: Representations of women as victims and perpetrators of crime in the mid nineteenth century’ (Unpublished PhD thesis, UCL, 2000), 10.

[46] Stocqueler, Maid Marian, 109.

[47] Stocqueler, Maid Marian, 92.

[48] Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own (London, 1929) [Internet <>>&gt; Accessed 04 May 2016].


John Dryden’s “A Ballad of Bold Robin Hood, Shewing his Birth, Breeding, and Valour”

But see where artful Dryden next appears,
Grown old in rhyme, but charming ev’n in years,
Great Dryden next, whose tuneful muse affords
The sweetest numbers, and the fittest words.
Whether in comic sounds or tragic airs
She forms her voice, she moves our smiles or tears.
If satire or heroic strains she writes,
Her hero pleases, and her satire bites.
From her no harsh unartful numbers fall,
She wears all dresses, and she charms in all.
How might we fear our English poetry,
That long has flourish’d, should decay with thee.
– Joseph Addison, Account of the Greatest English Poets (1694)

John Dryden
John Dryden (1631-1700)

John Dryden (1631-1700) is a significant figure in the literary history of the seventeenth century, and was counted by Joseph Addison (1672-1719) as being the best poet throughout the whole of English history. He lived through one of the most tumultuous centuries in English history, witnessing the English Revolution and Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell (1642-1659), the Restoration of Charles II, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which saw James II ousted from the English throne in favour of William of Orange and his wife, Mary.

Dryden’s own career was affected by the changing political scene in Britain. He worked in an administrative capacity for the Protectorate, and had a certain degree of admiration for Cromwell, having authored the poem Heroick Stanzas in his honour. He was, however, able to see which way the wind was blowing. Upon the Restoration he allied himself with the returning Stuarts. He became one of their most loyal supporters, and was appointed as Poet Laureate by Charles II in 1668. But after the ascension of William and Mary in 1688, his position as Poet Laureate was rescinded and he had no choice but to concentrate on dramatic works and translations.

Dryden exhibited a high degree of interest in England’s medieval past. He wrote the highly successful play King Arthur; or, The British Worthy in 1691, which was accompanied with an elegant musical score by the composer Henry Purcell. He also translated some of the works of Chaucer in his Fables: Ancient and Modern (1700). But Dryden also kept an eye on the popular culture of the day, and to this end, in partnership with the printer Jacob Tonson, he published several volumes of Miscellany Poems which appeared in 1684, 1685, 1693, and 1694, and were reprinted repeatedly until a full six-volume edition in 1716, the sixth part of which was published posthumously after Dryden’s death in 1700.

Miscellany title page
Title Page to The Sixth Part of Miscellany Poems (1700)

It is in the sixth part of the Miscellany Poems that the ballad A Ballad of Bold Robin Hood, Shewing his Birth, Breeding, and Valour appeared. A commentary on the actual content of the ballad has been undertaken for TEAMs by Stephen Knight and Thomas Ohlgren, rendering a further discussion unnecessary here. It is rather the significance of the ballad appearing in the sixth volume that I want to briefly discuss.

Too often we tend to view the literary history of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries through the works of a number of ‘great’ writers such as Dryden himself, Addison, Richard Steele, and Daniel Defoe. Yet these were works of high literature, and were not read by people every day. Instead, the various collections of Miscellanies which were published throughout the period tell us what was popular at the time for readers. In the words of one critic:

They were the form in which many ordinary people would have read poetry in the eighteenth century, and offer insights into readers and consumers of the past […]they represent a particularly important and popular mediation of poetry in the eighteenth century.

Miscellanies (and there were many more apart from Dryden’s collections) tended to reflect the popular culture of the moment. There must have been a temporary vogue among readers in the early eighteenth century for pieces of light pastoral poetry. Pastoral poetry and plays derive from the classical tradition and tend to represent simple country life, in the vein of Ben Jonson’s The Sad Shepherd; or, A Tale of Robin Hood (1631), in which Robin, instead of being an outlaw, is ‘Chief Woodsman of the Forest’ who gathers together ‘all the shepherds and shepherdesses of the forest’ together for a feast. The Robin Hood ballad which is published in Dryden’s collection is not marketed as a popular ballad, even though it was available in contemporary broadsides. Instead, it is presented as a piece of ‘pastoral poetry’, indicated by the volume’s preface:

There is no sort of poetry, if well wrought, but gives delight. And the pastoral perhaps may boast of this in a peculiar manner. For, as in painting, so I believe, in poetry, the country affords the most entertaining scenes, and most delightful prospects.

Hence a ballad of Robin Hood, which details life in the forest, fits perfectly inside a volume dedicated to celebrating pastoral poetry.

Indeed, if it is accepted that Miscellanies contain pieces of poetry which were popular with readers at the time, this would seem to complicate Stephen Knight and Thomas Ohlgren’s remarks about this ballad. They say that:

This ballad was moderately well-known, with three versions surviving from the seventeenth century, that in the Roxburghe collection seeming earlier than the two collected by Pepys, and therefore the basis for this text. It appeared in three eighteenth-century collections before Ritson, but is not included in the early garlands, which may suggest it is less than fully popular in its distribution.

My argument to that is that the ballad can hardly have been ‘moderately well-known’ given the fact that, out of all the Robin Hood ballads which were available to contemporaries, the editor of the Miscellanies chose this ballad to reflect popular contemporary works.

This was, moreover, an age in which gradually the works of native English authors were becoming respected; it is in the eighteenth century, for instance, that the works of Chaucer and Shakespeare first became thought of as ‘classics’. Sophisticated readers began to treasure the works, not only of Chaucer and Shakespeare, but of the ballad writers. We owe the survival of many seventeenth-century popular ballads, for instance, to the labours of Samuel Pepys, who collected and preserved a number of broadsides in his personal library. Alongside Pepys were other eminent men who collected and preserved ballads, such as John Selden, and John Bagford whose collections of ballads became the Roxburghe Collection of ballads. Thus it was not the plebeian classes who only enjoyed English ballads but those of higher stations in life as well.

Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) collected and preserved many broadside ballads.

Finally, the inclusion of A Ballad of Bold Robin Hood, Shewing his Birth, Breeding, and Valour in Dryden’s Miscellanies confirms Liz Oakley-Brown’s argument that after c.1600 the Robin Hood tradition began to move away from being an oral tradition to being a predominantly textual one. In Dryden’s volume, this Robin Hood ballad was not something that would have been sung. Rather it was something that somebody would have read. It is therefore the appearances of Robin Hood ballads in pieces of literature such as this that allow us to chart the development of the Robin Hood tradition, seeing how it gradually became gentrified and respectable for an audience of readers.

As a fan of Dryden myself, it would please me greatly if it ever turned out that Dryden himself wrote the ballad, but that seems very unlikely.

Further Reading:

My post on Dryden’s King Arthur (1691) on The History Vault

The Digital Miscellanies Project

Full Text of the Sixth Part of Miscellany Poems on Google Books

Stephen N. Zwicker (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

King Arthur; or, The British Worthy (1691) by John Dryden, with Musick by Henry Purcell

Henry Purcell (1659-1695)
Henry Purcell (1659-1695)

Some of the material in this post has been adapted from an earlier post on eighteenth-century medievalism.

A great and heroic medieval English king, brutal Saxon warriors, magicians and magic, enchanted woods, fairies…this doesn’t really sound like an eighteenth-century play, does it?

Indeed, the ‘long eighteenth century’ (c.1688-c.1837) is not a period that people usually associate with medievalism; indeed, neo-classical motifs seemed to dominate the age. If anything, history writers such as Edward Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (published in six volumes between 1776-1789).

Yet one can detect in this period glimmerings of interest in the medieval period; when government buildings such as Somerset House were being built in the neo-classical design, the people designing the new buildings for Oxford University resisted the neo-classical in favour of the Gothic; in fact, Alice Chandler says that, in one sense, the medieval period had never really died:

In a sense, the middle ages had never died […] Chaucer’s plowman would have found England’s [18th-century] rural life very familiar. The tools and produce of agriculture had scarcely changed for centuries; the old country customs and festivals were only slowly dying out; and the whir of the spinning wheel had just begun to grow silent.

Which brings me to the play which is the subject of this post; King Arthur; or, The British Worthy, written by John Dryden (1631-1700) originally in 1685, but then set to  music by Henry Purcell (1659-1695) in 1691. The play premiered at the Queen’s Theatre in May 1691. Dryden was a poet, literary critic, translator, and playwright, and exercised a profound influence upon Restoration literary life. Little is known of Purcell’s life and career, but he is credited with having invented a uniquely English form of Baroque music. Together these men produced what is, in my opinion, one of the best medievalist operas of the long eighteenth century.

John Dryden (1631-1700)
John Dryden (1631-1700

Today, King Arthur is pretty much a fantasy figure, occupying the same sort of quasi-historical ground that the television show Game of Thrones does; not “historical” as such, but not so far removed from fact either. Dryden’s play seeks to ground King Arthur in (almost) verifiable history, although Merlin does make a brief appearance.

The dramatis personae of the play are:

  • King Arthur.
  • Oswald, King of Kent, a Saxon and a heathen.
  • Conon, Duke of Cornwall, Tributary to King Arthur.
  • Merlin, an infamous Inchanter.
  • Osmond, a Saxon Magician.
  • Aurelius, a friend to Arthur.
  • Albanact, Captain of Arthur’s Guards.
  • Guillamar, friend to Oswald.
  • Emmeline, daughter of Conon.
  • Matilda, her attendant.
  • Philidel, an Airy Spirit.
  • Grimbald, an Earthly Spirit.
  • Officers and Soldiers, Singers and Dancers, etc.

As you can see, there is a distinct lack of the Arthurian characters which we, as modern audiences, have come to expect as part of the Arthurian tradition. There is no Guinevere, no Lancelot, no Sir Gawain. In fact, the cast is almost unrecognisable. But this is ok, as these characters were only firmly established as part of the legend in the nineteenth century (indeed, even Marian, another “medieval” figure, did not firmly become Robin Hood’s love interest until the nineteenth century, before that his sweetheart was a woman called Clorinda).

The opera opens on St. George’s Day, just as the Christian King Arthur is to go into battle against the heathen, Saxon King Oswald:

Con. Then this is the deciding Day, to fix Great Britain’s Scepter in great Arthur’s Hand.

Aur. Or put it in the bold Invaders gripe. Arthur and Oswald, and their different Fates, Are weighing now within the Scales of Heaven.

Arthur enters bearing a letter from Merlin, which tells Arthur that there are good omens with him on this day of battle.

The scene then switches to the Saxon camp, where Oswald and his soldiers are sacrificing to the Saxon gods before they go into battle, where the “the Stage is fill’d with Priests and Singers:”

Woden, first to thee,

A Milk white Steed in Battle won,

We have Sacrific’d

Chor. We have Sacrific’d

Vers. Let our next Oblation be,

To Thor, thy thundring Son,

Of such another.

Chor. We have Sacrific’d.

Vers. A third; (of Friezeland breed was he,)

To Woden’s Wife, and to Thor’s Mother,

And now we have atton’d all three

We have sacrific’d.

Chor. We have Sacrific’d.

I’m not sure how “accurate” a scene of a Saxon sacrifice this would have appeared; were all the Saxons wearing wigs? Personally, I’d like to think so, as I love the “elegance” of eighteenth-century fashions.

After the prayers of the Britons and the Saxons’ sacrifices, a battle is given behind the scenes, and the Britons sing this rousing song:

Purcell, 'The Fairest Isle,' King Arthur (1691)
Purcell, ‘The Fairest Isle,’ King Arthur (1691)

“Come if you dare,” our trumpets sound.
“Come if you dare,” the foes rebound.
We come, we come, we come, we come,”
Says the double, double, double beat of
the thund’ring drum.

“Come if you dare,” our trumpets sound, etc.

Now they charge on amain.
Now they rally again.
The Gods from above the mad labour behold,
And pity mankind that will perish for gold.

Now they charge on amain, etc.

The fainting Saxons quit their ground,
Their trumpets languish in their sound,
They fly, they fly, they fly, they fly,
“Victoria, Victoria,” the bold Britons cry.

The Saxons, however, attempt to use magic to defeat Arthur and he is led into an enchanted forest where “nymphs and sylvans” emerge from the trees and attempt to trap him there. This leads to what is perhaps one of the most beautiful songs in the play: How Happy the Lover!

The only surviving image of a Restoration Theatre - Dorset Gardens (c.1670)
The only surviving image of a Restoration Theatre – Dorset Gardens (c.1670)

How happy the lover,
How easy his chain!
How sweet to discover
He sighs not in vain.

How happy the lover?

For love ev’ry creature
Is form’d by his nature.
No joys are above
The pleasures of love.

No joys are above
The pleasures of love.

Three Nymphs
In vain our graces
In vain are your ayes.
If love you despise,

Facade of Dorset Gardens Theatre
Facade of Dorset Gardens Theatre

When age furrows faces

‘Tis too late to be wise.

Then use the sweet blessing
While now in possessing.
No joys are above
The pleasures of love.

Three Women
No joys are above
The pleasures of love.

At the end, however, Arthur destroys the Saxons’ magic, and approaches the Oswald’s castle, and is drawn into hand-to-hand combat with Oswald. Arthur manages to disarm Oswald. Victorious, instead of killing Oswald, Arthur says to him:

Arth. Confess thy self o’ercome, and ask thy Life.

Oswa. ‘Tis not worth asking, when ’tis in thy Power.

Arth. Then take is as my Gift.

18th-Century Print of Britannia
Late 18th-Century Print of Britannia

The Saxons are commanded to go back because, “Britain’s [sic] brook no foreign power.” The play ends with a Masque in which Britannia rises out of the ocean with fisherman at her feet.

As far as I’ve been able to uncover, there are no extant reviews of this play so I don’t know how it was received at the time that it was first performed. But the play is interesting because there seems to be the first flickerings of a national consciousness in it.

There are numerous references to Britain which, as a state, did not yet exist (England and Scotland would not be incorporated into one United Kingdom until 1707), and it is a consciousness that, in the play at least, is forged by war, and which will last for generations, as Merlin exclaims:

Our Valiant Britains, Who shall by Sea and Land Repel our Foes. Now look above, and in Heav’ns High Abyss, Behold what Fame attends those future Hero’s.

Clearly, the heroism of King Arthur and his knights will resonate through the centuries; and, indeed, in 1691, when the opera was performed, saw England involved in the Grand Alliance against the French and the Jacobites in the Nine Years’ War (1688-1697), and indeed, the reigning king, William III, was forced in July 1691 to take care of a Catholic Jacobite uprising in Ireland, and decisively defeated the Irish supporters of the deposed King of England, James II, at the Battle of the Boyne.

Furthermore, the image of Britannia rising above the waves surrounded by boats is significant; by 1691 Britain was well on its way to becoming the “polite and commercial” nation of the eighteenth century. Over the course of the eighteenth century, Britain’s trade would boom, along with the expansion of the (often informal) British Empire under the auspices of private commercial ventures such as the East India Company (established 1600), and the Hudson Bay Company (established 1670).

Scholars have on the whole been full of praise for King Arthur:

Then human and supernatural interests are closely interwoven, the spoken dialogue and the musical numbers are in general well-balanced. The main interest of the play is inevitably centered on the music, but the dialogue is clear and not too prolix, and  although the principal characters do not sing at all, the music is cleverly led up to so as to be an integral part of the drama.

Edward J. Dent, Foundations of English Opera: A Study of Musical Drama in England During the Seventeenth Century (New York: Da Capo, 1965), p.208.
Thomas Arne's
Thomas Arne’s “Rule Britannia” (1740)

This type of glorification of England’s medieval past, evident in Dryden’s King Arthur, is often thought to be an exception in a period which was drawn to the neo-classical fashions of the Continent. Dryden also seems to have been fascinated by the medieval period, having translated some of Chaucer’s works into neo-classical, ‘heroic’ couplets. Yet Purcell and Dryden were not alone; perhaps one of the most famous examples of 18th-century medievalism is Thomas Arne’s patriotic song Rule Britannia (1740). Everyone has heard this song, and it is still sung annually at the BBC’s Last Night of the Proms. The song was originally part of the finale to a larger opera entitled Alfred. The masque, as it is properly called, was about the medieval Saxon King Alfred the Great. The masque was composed under a commission from Frederick, Prince of Wales (1707-1751). Anxious over his quarrels with his father, and as a German prince who had grown up in Hanover, the prince through this piece of music sought to connect with his British subjects, by linking himself to Britain’s legendary King.

G. F. Handel [Source: Wikipedia]
G. F. Handel [Source: Wikipedia]

Moreover, when G. F. Handel composed a piece of music for the coronation of George II entitled Zadok the Priest in 1727, he used the following lyrics:

Zadok the Priest, and Nathan the Prophet anointed Solomon King. And all the people rejoiced, and said: God save the King! Long live the King! May the King live for ever, Amen, Allelujah.

The lyrics are taken from a passage in the Old Testament. Although a religious man, however, Handel was not seeking to connect George II with the Biblical King Solomon. He was in fact continuing a medieval tradition. Those words had been used at every coronation of an English King since 927 AD. In fact, Zadok the Priest was not the only opera which Handel had written with medievalist overtones. His other earlier opera entitled Rinaldo (1711) was set during the First Crusade in the 1090s, and starred the famous castrato Nicolo Grimaldi (1673-1732). In fact, King Arthur played opposite Georg Friderick Handel’s popular Italian opera, Rinaldo, staged at the King’s Theatre, in a concert version at Stationer’s Hall, London, in April and May of 1711. There must have been some savvy theatre manager who realised the attraction of pitting two medievalist opera together.

In the eighteenth century there were also many Robin Hood plays, such as Robin Hood: A New Musical Entertainment (1751) by Moses Mendez, The Sad Shepherd; or a Tale of Robin Hood (1783) by Francis Waldron, and Leonard MacNally’s Robin Hood, or Sherwood Forest (1784).

Indeed, King Arthur would be revived several times upon the stage during the eighteenth century:

While the […] records attest to the popularity of the semi-opera, King Arthur, and particularly to Purcell’s music, the most prominent of the early eighteenth-century revivals was yet to come. In the season of 1735/36, King Arthur was fully-staged more than forty times in London, with a few more performances during the next season, and four more in 1740/41. These performances were relatively unaltered from Dryden and Purcell’s original, with Dryden’s text reprinted in 1736 with only slight alterations in two editions titled, King Arthur, or, Merlin, the British Inchanter, and Merlin, or The British Inchanter, and King Arthur, the British Worthy. A musical score dated ca.1738 likewise presents little revision to Purcell’s original music (Jamie Childs, 2006).

Jamie Childs further highlights just how popular King Arthur was until the nineteenth century:

King Arthur was presented in Dublin in 1750 with records for a total of 76 performances, but little else is known about this revival. When performed in Dublin again in 1763, two editions of a much-adapted playbook were published with sub-titles, “A Dramatick Opera”, and “A Masque”; Another, similarly revised, was printed for a Dublin production of the semi-opera in 1769, again with the subtitle, “A Masque”. The 1763 and 1769 editions both contain an appended history titled “Account of the Life of Arthur” adapted from medieval sources of the legend. King Arthur was revived again in London in 1770, this time in a newly-altered form by the well-known actor-director David Garrick, with both text and music published in this new form in 1770 and 1781. Performances in London based upon these altered texts and scores ran from 1770 to 1773, and resumed in 1781/82. Yet another reworking of both text and music was produced by actor-director John Phillip Kemble for revivals in the seasons between 1784 to 1787 and between 1789 to 1791, with playbooks for these performances published with the new title, Arthur and Emmeline, in 1784, 1785, and 1789. Still more revivals of the 1770 and 1781 adaptations of King Arthur took place in London in 1803 and 1810, and then were altered again in 1819 and 1827.

Neither was it simply upon the stage that the medieval past was celebrated, but also by scholars and antiquaries. Bishop Thomas Percy (1729-1811) collected ancient medieval manuscripts and published them in his Reliques of Ancient English Poetry (1765), and following Percy’s lead was Thomas Evans, who published Old Ballads, Historical and Narrative (1784). Among these two men also Joseph Ritson (1752-1803), mentioned many times on this site, followed Percy and Evans’ leads by publishing:

  • Ancient English Metrical Romances (1802)
  • Robin Hood: A Collection of all the Ancient Poems, Songs, and Ballads, Now Extant, Relative to that Celebrated English Outlaw (1795)
  • Poems on interesting events in the reign of Edward III. Written in the year MCCCLII (1795)
Percy’s “Reliques” (Source: Wikipedia)

The prevailing consensus amongst historians and literary critics seems to be that it was Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832) who ‘had first turned men’s minds in the direction of the middle ages’ by writing Ivanhoe (1819) and thereby initiating the medieval revival. Yet medievalism was present in the long eighteenth century. Granted, it was often clouded under a haze of neoclassicism (Dryden’s Chaucer, for instance, was “translated” from Middle English into neoclassical, heroic “couplets”), but the interest was still there; as this post shows, perhaps we should start to think in a more nuanced way, and indeed, the topic of eighteenth-century medievalism seems ripe for research.

Overture to Act 1

Listen to the full version of King Arthur; or, the British Worthy (1691).

Further Reading:

Jamie Child (2006) Major Editions and Performances of Dryden and Purcell’s King Arthur.