The Fortunes of King Arthur (review)

This collection has a dual focus, on the figure of Fortune in Arthurian romance, and on the varying fortunes of Arthur as a protean figure, reinterpreted in different cultures and periods. The majority of the contributors address the second of these aspects; indeed, only Siân Echard makes Fortune her principal subject, arguing that the downfall of Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth is not the work of a Christianized Fortuna, but of blind fate. Neil Thomas, in a complex study, shows how later German romances confront and reconfigure concepts such as Fortune's wheel and Fortune's kingdom, and assert the pre-eminence of human action and courage. Fortune's wheel is also the theme in the opening paragraphs of Alison Stones's study of Arthurian iconography in French MSS; Stones goes on, however, to show how various were the episodes of the Arthuriad chosen for illustration. Among the other essays which cover the changing interpretations of Arthur, Christopher Snyder argues in favour of Nennius's authorship of the Historia brittonum, and has persuasive linguistic evidence for his case that Nennius's Arthur should be understood as a high king. The late W. R. J. Barron examines the evolution of English and Scots Arthurian material, and the ways in which it reflects shifting socio-political values. Lacy engagingly treats Arthur as if he were a real person, traduced by writers who fail to give insights into his emotional life. Joan Grimbert shows that, in the Tavola ritonda, Tristano and Isotta are seen as superior to Lancilotto and Ginevara, because their love is not the result of a freely willed choice. Jane Taylor argues that the late prose romances Perceforest and the Le Chevalier du Papegau are travel narratives rather than quests. A recurring preoccupation is the perception of Arthur as either a historical or a legendary figure. Dennis Green shows how Geoffrey of Monmouth's Arthur was at first received as historical, but progressively fictionalized by vernacular writers in the twelfth century. Edward Kennedy links the de-historicization of Arthur to nationalist concerns, arguing that it was the work of French writers, who also introduced the theme of Arthur's incest with his sister — a topic ignored by English authors. (Unfortunately, as with Alison Stones's essay, the editor has failed to check his contributors' mistranslation of some of the Old French passages cited.) Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan, in an interesting account of the sixteenth-century Welsh chronicle by Elis Gruffydd, shows how Gruffydd himself engaged in the debate over Arthur's historicity, and maintained a judiciously balanced view. The diachronic perspective concludes with essays by Alan Lupack and Caroline Eckhardt on reworkings of the Arthurian theme, or of Malory in particular, into the twentieth century. The index is particularly detailed and helpful. This is a varied collection, but one which responds to the dual perspective of the volume's title, and which yields many rewarding insights.