Once again we see a different side to Arthur. He is very different from the "Yvain" Arthur who claims to follow the laws of the land and can make arbitrary pronouncements. Also, the "Lanval" Arthur is full if anger but refrains taking "revenge." I remember being shocked by Arthur's indifference to the plight of his queen in "Lancelot" when he makes no move to stop or arrest Meleagant for issuing his challenge to the "Great King Arthur." Instead he is so worried about Kay and runs to the same queen he cannot defend, to ask her aid in persuading Kay to change his mind. In the Percival story Arthur sits brooding when the original Red Knight snatched his gold cup from him in the middle of court, spilling wine on his queen! Here it seems Arthur is more worried about his queen's anger.
It appears that this is Chretien's way of glamorizing his chosen heroes as men of valor and "knights."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What a sad sack! Arthur is such a sulking killjoy throughout "Perceval," it's no wonder his knights prefer heading out on perilous quests to sitting around the Round Table listening to their "do nothing" king moan about a little spilt wine. He's sad he lost his cup, he's sad Perceval ran off, he's sad that Kay was injured; he seems to constantly need consolation. Fortunately, most of the events in this last Chretien tale transpire *outside* of Arthur's sphere, otherwise, the reader might have been forced to run off too!
ReplyDeleteAh, but I liked this story and perhaps I'm being to harsh on the old fellow. Afterall, his own mother reveals that he's somewhere near 100 years old. She tells Gawain, "If he's a hundred, he's no more; he couldn't be a day over that." HIS MOTHER SAYS THIS!! How is this possible? Somebody get the grail quick! Arthur is in serious need of eternal life.
I'm trying to think back over all the texts we've read so far, and (correct me if I'm wrong) I think this is the first time abnormal aging processes have been mentioned.
It occurs to me that the deminishment of Arthur in Chretien de Trois's Perceval brings the court itself into a greater light. While we only see the works of Kay, as a jackass; Gawain, as the knight extraordinary; and Perceval, as a Welshman playing knight, we still get a sense that, much like Rome, all glory trickles back to Arthur's court.
ReplyDeleteWhile Perceval is taking names and kicking ass-es back to Arthur's court, what I find most interesting is that the moderate choice is always Arthur. To be a good knight, to show mercy, to increase the standing of his lord, Perceval's achievements always return to Arthur. And yes, one can read into it that Arthur is a simpering, down, bad poetry writing teenage wimp, but at the same time his court is the reflected standard of 'the right way' to do things. Consequently, I would think, so too must Arthur be a paragon of 'something' right, simpering-wimpness aside.
Arthur is indeed a contradictory figure in The Story of the Grail: seemingly week, broody, even petulant, he is still "the king who makes knights" and who travels with an unmatched entourage, before whose presence judicious combats and tournaments may be scheduled for the sanction of justice and high ceremony. Has Arthur's office at this point outlived his personal effectiveness? These are hard questions to judge in the discrete narratives of Chrétien's work, where it's not always clear that Arthur is the same personality from text to text (just compare the Arthur of Cligés with the Arthur of Perceval!). When Arthur's story gets told in full, in chronicle or cycle format, then it's easier to make comparisons and draw conclusions about his overall character and its development. In the meantime, Chrétien's seeming inconsistencies of presentation plant the seeds for the later contradictions that make Arthur fascinating and compelling, if at times baffling and infuriating.
ReplyDeleteI'm also interested in the inconsistent portrayals of Arthur in Chretien's romances. Arthur indeed seems like a different character in each tale. Dispite Arthur's uneven portrayals, however, in Perceval he is still the central figure who sends knights out, and to whom knights return--Perceval sends Arthur dozens of knights in the course of his travels. What's interesting to me, is what happens to Arthur's central role in The Quest of the Holy Grail as a result of the religious interpretation of the tales. It seems that Arthur's role as the king who sends knights out and to whom knights return is displaced by Christ the king, the god who sends knights out to do his bidding (as Galahad does in his grail quest), and to whom they return (as Galahad does when he dies). Is Arthur's role as the central figure destroyed by the introduction of God and the spiritual knight? I'm interested to see how Arthur will adapt (or if he does adapt) to the religious atmosphere of the post-Chretien tales.
ReplyDelete