Time: About 11/2 hrs for thinking, writing, revision, and editing.
Scope: The exam will cover reading since the midterm with a few carry-over works. These are 1. Ivanhoe 2. Tristram and Iseult. Tennyson's Idylls will be on the final because it spans the first and second parts of the course.
Also, the NA general intros to Romanticism (1-8/20-22; bio on Scott) and the Victorian Age (979-88; 994-96; bio on Tennyson) will be helpful.
You can, of course, refer to works from before the midterm on final examination if you wish.
The final examination will follow the midterm with one new type of question
1. identifications (see your midterm)
2. short answers (see your midterm)
**3. longer essay (11/2-2 pgs) focusing on one work or comparing/contrasting two works.
Key Concepts/ideas: Nineteenth-Century medievalism/Victorian Medievalism; chivlary (see ); romance/history; Gothic, 1066 Conquest, Muscular Christianity, Arthurian legend (see NA online - medieval ages/intro & King Arthur)
Review your midterm and all quizzes. Cards/Assigns on Ivanhoe.
1. Review your class notes/add and revise as you review
2. Review the reading - key passages from class/passages we did not look at in class - Hereward particularly)
3. Write out responses while timing yourself - make up your own questions. Review following the format of the exam.
The Medieval Past - Some Thoughts
1. The Gothic simultaneously looks backwards and forwards. In the early nineteenth century, new theories of government and democracy ushered in by revolutions (France/America) created a sense of uneasiness and even fear. The Gothic looked back to England's medieval past - institutions and character - for stability and order. However, the Gothic also was revived and adapted (modernized) to new create new forms, whether gardens or literature, and presented new ideas about freedom, imagination, and personal space.
2. The 1066 Conquest was a pivatol moment in English history. How do Ivanhoe and Hereward present and interpret this key event? On the one hand, the Conquest is viewed as the defeat of a worn-out race. And thus becomes an argument for progress, both at home and for expanding the empire. But how, then, is this defeat incorporated into the narrative of England's history and status as an empire without becoming an embarassing moment? Without acknowledging that England's progress depended on others? On the other hand, the Conquest is viewed as an episode of Norman tryanny and treachery. And despite the Norman conquest, Englishness - its institutions and character - survived and influenced England development into the 19th century. But this view also serves as a check to progress (e,g, effects of 19th century industrialization/empire building), a reminder of England's past (e.g., harmony, stability, faith, freedom) and what might learned from it. How can the above novels hold conflicting, competing views? How?
3. Romance (Historical) narrative: Does this view create a medieval past that never existed but one that readers wanted to exist? As such, this past is full of imaginative possibility and chivalric action. If this is true, can this medieval past still offer a feasible critique of or solutions for nineteeth-century society?