CONCEPTIONS OF KING ARTHUR IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Abstract

Twentieth-century responses to the figure of King Arthur have ranged through every hue of the spectrum. To some authors he is an idealized fig- ure, an inspiration to all who seek a nobler way of life, while to others he is an unscrupulous and brutal tyrant, spreading fear and terror among foes and followers alike; some perceive him as a man of destiny who shapes events through the force of hi personality and vision, while others see only a strug- gling swimmq Soon swept away by the fierce tide of events beyond his con- trol; some exalt his triumphs over rebellious Britons and invading Scots and Saxons alike; some lament the tragedy and pathos of his fate, betrayed by his wife and best friend; some rage against his follies as he squanders the chance to save his people; some laugh at the comical predicaments into which his aspirations lead him. Between these extremes just about every shade and combination of opinion may be found. Amidst such bewildering variety, the task of discerning the major con- ceptions of King Arthur is a challenge. Indeed, it is easier in some ways to view the various representations of his figure as a series of points on the slope of a graph between different extremes or, to return to our original metaphor, as subtly differing shades along the entire range of the spectrum. Yet, just as to the human eye the spectrum seems to divide itself into distinct colors, so the representations of Arthur do lend themselves to certain noticeable, if at times overlapping, groupings. Many of the works written earlier this century share, with those of the dosing decades of the nineteenth century, an interest in the love triangle among Arthur-Guenevere-Lancelot In these works Arthur may attract sym- pathy or criticism, but he never escapes some loss of status. He is, after all, the deceived husband, a man who has failed to satisfy his wife. However good his reasons or bad hers, he is robbed of dignity by being placed in a