A HERO FALLS: THE POLITICAL DECISIONS OF KING ARTHUR
by Tom Frazier
A nation's history is often retold in the form of legends to illustrate outstanding characteristics which the citizens of that particular nation wish to emphasize. Although most legends are based upon some historical truth, many are exaggerations and flights of wishful thinking. Nations tend to overlook weaknesses or shortcomings in those they wish to elevate. Such is the case of the English and King Arthur.
When most of us think of King Arthur, we conjure a picture of Richard Harris tearfully singing of that "one shining moment." We see a wronged husband and a vanishing ideal. We have acquired a great deal of this Arthur from the works of writers such as Alfred, Lord Tennyson and T. H. White. However, a close reading of Sir Thomas Malory's version of the Arthurian legend indicates that the true fall of Camelot and the Round Table resulted from political decisions on the part of King Arthur, himself, not from "disloyalty" of the knight of knights, Launcelot, and Queen Guinevere.
Malory makes no pretense of writing a history. Instead, he strives to give the English a work which can represent all that they consider "heroic" in themselves. By taking literary license with known facts and with what Geoffrey of Monmouth reported as fact, Malory weaves an intricate story which eventually reaches legendary proportions.
In all probability, Merlin could have insured Arthur and the ideal he represented total success by intervening with magic when his charge was in danger. But this would have negated Arthur's destiny of decline and fall. For, as Charles Moorman observes, Merlin's "efforts are largely responsible for the establishment of Arthur's kingdom, but [his] power cannot avert its tragic end."(1) If Arthur's eventual failure is to be averted, it can be done only through his own actions, not through outside interference.
In order for Arthur to become a national hero of the caliber of Siegfried, of Ulysses, or of Charlemagne, Malory needed to make him larger than life. Providing an outside, preternatural guardian would not suffice. If this preternatural entity proved to be the sole means of success, then this entity would have become the element upon which the legend was built; therefore, there would be only the legend of Merlin instead of the legend of Arthur.
One must read Malory closely if the significance of Arthur's political decisions is to become clear. Too often this significance is lost in the pageantry of the court and the jousting field, in the trysts of Launcelot and Guinevere, and in the adventures of the brave knights going forth from Camelot in quest of adventure and of the Holy Grail. This presents the trappings of the Camelot ideal, but beneath this romantic glitter and glamour lies the story of a ruthless, but not always successful, politician who rises to power by manipulating situations in which he finds himself. It is this political Arthur, if viewed realistically, who presents a much more interesting story than the singing, romantic figure that we most often relate to the story. After Merlin's departure, Arthur attempts to cement his position by playing "mind games" with all who come before him and bases most of his decisions upon the concept that if it is good for Arthur, then it is good.
The thread which ties together Arthur's decisions is his tendency to operate out of reaction to momentary impulses. This weakness is brought to light early in the story when Merlin attempts to test the perceptions of the young ruler. Shortly after Arthur is given the scabbard-encased sword by the Lady of the Lake, Merlin asks, "Whethir lyke ye better the swerde othir the scawberde?"(2) Arthur's contention that he likes the sword better gives an indication of his personality and intent.
Merlin later chides Arthur on several occasions and shows his concern about Arthur's propensity for immediate gratification. As Merlin tells the young king preparing for, a skirmish: "Syr, fyghte not with the swerde that ye had by myracle til that ye see ye go unto the wers; thenne drawe it out and do your best."(3) Merlin's words carry more than immediate importance. He, in fact, warns Arthur that he, Arthur, must be in complete control at all times. Unfortunately, the significance of this warning falls upon deaf ears. Of course, neither Arthur's weakness for giving in to a need for immediate satisfaction nor its innate destructive potential escapes Merlin. We witness this when Merlin remonstrates Arthur during battle: "Thou hast never done. Hast thou nat done inow? Of three score thousande thys day thou leffte on lyve but fyftene thousand! Therefore hit ys tyme to sey 'Who!' for God ys wroth with the for thou woll never have done.'(4) Arthur gives lip service to Merlin's admonition, yet he soon again follows his own desires rather than the common sense posited by the wise, old sorcerer.
For instance, when Arthur becomes enamored with the wife of King Lott, he must and does have her. No thought is given to the possible ramifications, for he is, after all, the king. Soon, however, Merlin discloses what Arthur has done and the long-term results of his actions: "ye have done a thynge late that God ys displesed with you, for ye have lyene by youre syster and on hir ye have gotyn a childe that shall destroy you and all the knyghtes of youre realme."(5) And just as he has done in the past, Arthur reacts impulsively, this time following a strong instinct for self-preservation. After all, has Merlin not told him who most endangers his rule? The prudent political decision is to remove that person. So Arthur puts all of the children born on May Day on a boat and sends them, he hopes, to their peril at sea. Arthur's attempt to destroy all potential future adversaries fails, however. One child survives, and, that child is the one about whom Merlin has warned. Arthur has made his first political decision, and we are soon aware that his action does not always produce the desired, positive results. This soon proves the rule rather than the exception in his political life.
With the passing of Merlin, Arthur must rule and live by his own wits, an impossibility at best. By going behind the scenes with Arthur, the reader sees only doom in the king's future that is further guaranteed by each subsequent political decision he makes.
The most obvious and most puzzling threat to Arthur is the Launcelot and Guinevere liaison. The initial reader response to Arthur's predicament is one of surprise. How could these two people whom Arthur loves best betray him? With time, however, our initial surprise turns to wonder. The Launcelot-Guinevere coupling lasted for just over two decades, so Arthur must have known. Arthur must have had some concern. Arthur must have acted. But our seeing the adultery continue unabated creates a revision of Arthur as the hero, and he becomes little more than one who lives under the sign of the cuckold's horns. Our respect begins to wane. Arthur is no longer larger than life, one who, as we earlier naively perceived, represented an ideal and the good that should have resulted from that ideal.
Only after we part the idealistic shroud in which we have wrapped Arthur can we delve deeper into the multi-faceted personality and psyche of this extremely complex individual. It is through Arthur's more "mature" political decisions that we become aware of the two-sided political animal Arthur. Although these decisions appear to have longer lasting results than his earlier decisions concerning the drowning of the children and his appetite for combat, they nonetheless are firmly grounded in a crisis management mentality. Arthur was a steadfast believer in not disturbing a thing at rest. For this reason, he allowed Launcelot and Guinevere's encounters to continue uninterrupted.
Arthur initially emerges from his quasi-deific state as an extremely pragmatic politician, one who allows covert activities to transpire in order to maintain a control that eventually pulls free of the hands holding the reins of power. It is clear that Arthur needs Launcelot because Launcelot did not come to court alone; he brought or sent scores of other knights to serve Camelot's royalty. Even when the situation comes to a head and Arthur is forced to move against Launcelot, the king still voices a concern about the resulting loss: "he ys a mervaylous knyght of proues. . . . And alas . . . . me sore repentith that ever sir Launcelot sholde be ayenste me, for now I am sure the noble felyshyp of the Rounde Table ys brokyn for ever, for wyth hym woll many a noble knyght holde."(6) This realization by the reader sets straight many possible misconceptions.
Arthur did not allow the dalliances between his knight and his queen to continue out of an ex post facto ignorance nor a concern for his reputation if his realm became cognizant of their king's inability to act. As Arthur tells us, "I am soryar for my good knyghtes losse than for the losse of my fayre quene; for quenys I myght have inow, but such a felyship of good knyghtes shall never be togydirs in no company."(7) This is clearly a reiteration of Arthur's position when he earlier admitted that "who that hath sir Launcelot uppon his party hath the moste man of worship in thys worlde uppon hys syde."(8) The king's priorities are clearly delineated. There is no confusion as to whom he needs most and to what extent he is willing to go to maintain harmony with Launcelot and his minions.
Arthur's later fickleness escapes neither Launcelot nor the reader. Disappointment abounds when the bigger than life king becomes just another political expedient. If the king had been willing to act earlier, the final split might have been avoided and Camelot's survival assured. Instead, Arthur allowed the status quo to remain, sustaining the military loyalty of Launcelot and his underlings. After Arthur's reversal, the divested knight observes, "ye loved me and thanked me whan I saved your quene frome the fyre, and than ye promysed me for ever to be my good lorde. And now methynkith ye rewarde me evyll for my good servyse."(9) Keeping in mind the resulting conflict of interest and the merging of the heroic and romantic modes of literature, one sympathizes with Launcelot. He had met his obligations to defend Arthur and his realm against all foes, as the heroic mode dictated, but, in addition, he had sustained his role of knight protector of the lady Guinevere as was demanded by the round table oath and the romance concept of courtly love which creates a lord-to-lady loyalty as binding as that between king and subject. All things considered, it is Arthur who now reneges on an earlier, freely-given pledge.
Arthur moves against Launcelot and Guinevere only when allowing their liaison to continue would threaten the facade of tranquility at the court of the round table. When others show a willingness to sing out in voices that bespeak a rebellious potential, Arthur makes a positional shift. For instance, following Launcelot's grail expedition, he and the queen "loved togydirs more hotter than they dud toforehonde."(10) This time, however, their actions go neither unnoticed nor uncommented upon, for "many in the courte spake of hit, and in especiall sir Aggravayne, sir Gawayne's brothir, for he was ever opynne-mowthed."(11) Aggravayne is only one disgruntled voice coming from the court, the most vehement being Sir Gawayne, himself, who tells Launcelot, "Sir, the knyge may do as he wyll, . . . . [but] thou and I shall never be accorded whyle we lyve, for thou hast slayne three of my brethryn."(12)
Following his confrontation with Gawain, Launcelot knows that his presence at court will only create a greater rift among the knights and that Gawain will be a constant threat to his life. So, still thinking of both Arthur and Guinevere, Launcelot chooses to leave court, but not until he leaves Arthur with a warning reminiscent of one delivered much earlier by Merlin. Launcelot tells Arthur that "sir Mordred woll make trouble, for he ys passyng envyous and applyeth hym muche to trouble."(13) But again this warning goes unheeded.
Because he has been backed into a corner by disgruntled knights of the realm, especially his nephew Sir Gawain, Arthur makes no move to defend Launcelot and Guineivere. Instead, he acts to placate the grumbling voices. His actions, however, go beyond mere placation. Arthur knows that he must side with Gawain because of their uncle-nephew relationship. The Celtic code, under which Arthur's world functioned, required family allegiance, especially between male family members, and even more especially if this allegiance involved a possible successor to the throne.
When Aggravayne approaches Arthur with rumors of the Launcelot-Guinevere infidelity, he emphasizes the charges he and his kinsmen bring by reminding the king that "we be your syster sunnes."(14) Later when Gawain confronts Launcelot, he prefaces his charges with "myne uncle, kynge Arthur."(15) Through constant references to their kinship with the king, these knights verbally indicate what was made obvious in "The Great Tournament" section of "The Book of Sir Launcelot and Queen Guinevere."
During the tournament, Launcelot shoved his martial skills by defeating every knight who chose to face him. Here Launcelot demonstrated a superiority over the knights who came onto the field of battle and indirectly the king who had sent them. This was a more severe slap in the face to Arthur than Launcelot's lying with his Guinevere. Arthur acted from a political stance which he hoped would cement his position and joined his kinsmen against Launcelot on the jousting field. So, there is no surprise when the king later gives in to the charges leveled against Launcelot and Guenivere by his nephews and his son.
As we see Arthur's end approaching, we witness his making decisions that would have been unthinkable for the younger Arthur. True, he remains the king, but, for convenience, he shrouds his actions. He does not make a decision and say, "This is my decision." Instead, he gives in to a new concept, the king must follow the letter of the law. Of course, this is a conscious decision. Arthur now has an easy out and can give in to pressures being placed upon him without appearing weak. For instance, all he has to say when considering Guinevere's situation is simply, "she shall have the law."(16)
Still, Arthur's most damaging political decision is yet to be made. From time to time throughout the Arthurian saga, Malory provides foreshadowings to prepare us for Arthur's eventual fall. We know the identity of the one who will bring about Arthur's end, Mordred, for both Merlin and Launcelot have warned the king about him and the danger he represents. Even with this knowledge readily at hand, Arthur, as he does in so many cases, reacts impulsively. As inconceivable as it might seem, Arthur allows Mordred to go on living and living well as one of the knights of the Round Table.
Yet, when we consider the Arthur-Mordred relationship, we see that Arthur definitely has been backed into a political corner. Again, we must read this portion of the legend in light of the times in which it occurred, not in light of our twentieth-century psychology. As mentioned earlier, the tie among male kinsmen went far beyond the immediate needs and wants of individuals. Even though Mordred represented the destruction of all that Arthur held dear, he was the king's son; therefore, since Mordred had survived into adulthood, the king had to place him in a postion of honor. This is made clear when, upon leaving for the continent, Arthur turns over the governmental reins, his country and his wife to the one individual he has been warned to endure with greatest caution. Even with Launcelot's departure from Camelot and return to France, Gawain is unwilling to allow the knight who killed his brothers to escape unscathed. Again Gawain brings charges against the French knight and again reinforces his indictement by reminding Arthur that they are related. The king eventually yields to his nephew and joins him at the head of a large force sailing from Cardiff "to passe over the see, to warre uppon Launcelot and uppon hys londis."(17) And, as Malory wrote, Arthur made Mordred ruler in his stead.
On the continent, Arthur and Gawain's forces lay constant seige to Launcelot's forces and, on several occasions, Gawain challenges Launcelot to a mano-y-mano encounter. Eventually, Launcelot is drawn to the battlefield and wounds Gawain, but refuses to kill him. The animosities are not over. Arthur's forces await Gawain's recuperation before a final drive is made. But before Gawain is able to return to the field of combat, "ryght so cam tydyngis unto kynge Arthur frome Inglonde that made kynge Arthur and all hys oste to remeve."(18)
In a nutshell, the message informed Arthur that Mordred had fabricated a note proclaiming Arthur's death in combat with Launcelot. Allowing sufficient time to pass, Mordred demanded his rights as king and then announced that he intended to wed Guinevere, to which she responded by sequestering herself and loyal followers in the Tower of London. The queen would not come from behind the walls of the Tower, and Mordred would not give in to threats or entreaties to stop his seige. Arthur knew that he had been betrayed and that he had ignored warnings from both Merlin and Launcelot of the inevitability of this betrayal.
Arthur knew that his end and the end of all he held dear was close at hand. After Gawain died in his uncle's arms, Arthur acted. He told Sir Lucan, "Now gyff me my speare . . . for yondir I have aspyed the traytoure that all thys woo hat wroth."(19) The traitor was, of course, Mordred. But one must wonder if Arthur were not also righting the wrong he himself had committed by having his way with his sister, although he was not at first aware of her identity.
In the ensuing battle, both Arthur and Mordred are fatally wounded. Arthur is taken by Morgan le Fay and the other Ladies of the Lake to the Isle of Avalon. That shining moment of Camelot and Arthur is gone. However much esteem we place upon Arthur and the Arthurian ideal, we must be willing to see him as a flawed individual desiring an ideal situation. But by giving in to the whims of his underlings and himself, Arthur laid the foundation for his own destruction. By refusing to be the strong leader that he could have been, Arthur shows that ideals work only in ideal worlds, places which exist only in our dreams, places where kings can truly be larger than life. Rather than reinforcing his realm, Arthur's political decisions, one by one, led to its destruction.
ENDNOTES
1. Charles Moorman, The Book of Kyng Arthur: The Unity of Malory's Morte Arthur. (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1965), 70.
2. Sir Thomas Malory, Malory: Works. ed. Eugene Vinaver. 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 36; [This and other translations of the original Malory appearing within these notes are the work of the author of this article.] "Which do you like better, the sword or the scabbard?"
3. Ibid.,12; "Sir, do not fight with the sword that you received through a miracle until you are in a war; then draw it and do your best."
4. Ibid., 24; "You are never finished. Don't you get enough? Out of 60,000 soldiers, you have left only 15,000 alive! It is time to say 'Stop!' For God is angry with you because you never get your fill of fighting."
5. Ibid., 29; "Recently you did a thing that has greatly displeased God, for you have lain with your sister and fathered the child which will destroy you and all of your knights."
6. Ibid., 682; "he is a very great knight. . . . But . . . . I am distressed that Sir Launcelot may be against me, for I am now certain that the fellowship of the Round Table is destroyed forever; many good knights will stand with him."
7. Ibid., 685; "I regret the loss of my good knight more than the loss of my queen. For I can have many queens, but the world will never see another brotherhood like the Round Table."
8. Ibid., 615; "whoever has Launcelot on his side will have the greatest knights in the world to lead."
9. Ibid., 688; "You loved me and thanked men for saving your queen from the fire, and then you promised me to be my king forever. And now, you treat me badly for my loyalty."
10. lbid., 610; "loved more passionately than they did before."
11. Ibid.; "many in the court commented on Launcelot and Guenivere's affair, especially Sir Aggravayne, Sir Gawayne's brother, for he was always commenting on something."
12. lbid., 695; "Sir, the king can do what he wishes, but believe me, Sir Launcelot, you and I shall never be at peace while we live, for you have killed my three brothers."
13. Ibid., 699; "Sir Mordred will be trouble, for he is very jealous and works at making trouble."
14. Ibid., 674; "we are your sister's sons."
15. lbid., 696; "my uncle, King Arthur."
16. Ibid., 683; "she must answer to the law."
17. Ibid., 700; "to cross the sea and attack Sir Launcelot."
18. Ibid., 707; "soon King Arthur received news from England which forced him and his army return home."
19. Ibid., 713; "give me my spear . . . . because there is the traitor who has caused all of this trouble."