The last of Malory’s Arthur tales, “Le Morte d’Arthur,” could be regarded as the tale that deconstructs all the preceding tales. The very codes of conduct which made Arthur and his Round Table powerful are depicted backfiring at an amazing speed. As power deconstructs itself, we are shown the hidden and unacknowledged weakness which was always part of it. The glory and the romance are transformed into tragedy or travesty, or both. Yet, as the illusions are in their death throes, they seem to have a power to live in our imaginations that they didn’t when all seemed well. Just when Camelot is dead, it seems most desirable. The question of how it ended this way causes a backward glance at all the stories.

There were prophecies, of course. Merlin predicted that Arthur would be killed by his bastard son Mordred as punishment for his act of incest with his aunt, Margawse. Merlin also told Arthur that Guinevere was destined to take Sir Launcelot for her lover, ultimately leading to disastrous consequences. These prophecies are intended to serve as partial explanations of events via an assumed backdrop of divine retribution. They can also, however, be regarded as Merlin’s insight into the causal chain, which was to operate like Murphy’s Law (everything that can go wrong will go wrong) in the last tale. The causes of the tragic ending go deeper than sinful acts, though. They can be traced to the codes of chivalry, which made Arthur and his knights successful.

For a while, it seemed as if Arthur’s reign was uniquely successful. While there were glimpses of common people being treated with casual cruelty, the overall effect of Arthur’s reign on England seemed beneficial. The violence of his Round Table was, ideally, subordinated to the values symbolized by devotion to a lady – protection of the weak from the strong, justice for victims and punishment of wanton and unnecessary violence (on the part of anyone other than a knight of the Round Table). Thus, the courtly love tradition and the warrior tradition were balanced. Likewise, Arthur’s use of his kingly powers seemed to be in harmony with the good of his kingdom. All the power of the Round Table was ideally meant to uphold chivalry in the country and to defend it from outside attack. Unfortunately, these balances were achieved by codes that were bound to come into conflict with them eventually.

One of the most important codes of chivalry involved achieving and maintaining a reputation. The right to that reputation had to be constantly proven and re-proven. Launcelot could never decline a duel. Unfortunately, a lot of fine knights had to die to enable him to build his reputation. Malory would have us believe that Launcelot is worth thousands of ordinary knights. If the reader reads against the text, however, Launcelot’s triumphs can be regarded as early signs of the capricious violence that chivalry relies upon. Launcelot even wounded and killed many Knights of the Round Table. For example, in “The Tale of Launcelot Du Lake,” Launcelot struck Sir Gahalantyne a blow on the head that brought blood streaming from eyes, ears and mouth. Sir Gahalantyne was useless for further combat from then on.

King Arthur’s code of kingly behavior, too, ended up working against its purpose. Once his knights knew that he knew about Guinevere’s affair with Launcelot, he was forced to take strong action, even though he knew that it was not in the best interest of the Round Table or his country. The vulnerability inherent in his power was revealed. His behavior was controlled by others’ image of him. Without conforming to their image of a strong king, he had no power. From the moment when he took action against Launcelot, until his death, he behaved as a weak, will-less man who went through the motions that were expected of him, with full knowledge that he would ruin his kingdom.

“Jesu mercy!” seyde the kynge, “he ys a marvaylous knyght of proues. And alas,” seyde the kynge, “me sore repentith that ever sir Launcelot sholde be ayenste me, for now I am sure that the noble felysyp of the Rounde Table ys brokyn forever, for wyth hym many a noble knyght holde. And now hit ys fallen so,” seyde the kynge, “that I may nat with my worshyp but my quene must suffir dethe,” and was sore amoved. (Malory 682)

Arthur’s actions of arranging to burn Guinevere at the stake and to banish Launcelot set into motion the deconstructive causal chain. The next code of chivalry to play a part in the deconstructive dance was the revenge ethos. This, too, was an essential part of a knight’s reputation. No knight could command respect if he failed to avenge the murder of his relatives. Thus, when Launcelot in his hurry to rescue Guinevere accidentally killed Sir Gawayne’s brothers, Gaherys and Gareth, Gawayne could remain neutral no longer. He felt compelled to kill Launcelot at any cost. One more power game then worked to weaken the kingdom. Arthur tried to keep the facts of Gawayne’s brothers’ deaths from him.

“Well,” seyde Arthure, “the deth of them woll cause the grettist motall warre that ever was, for I am sure that whan sir Gawayne knowyth hereoff that sir Gareth ys slayne, I shall never have reste of hym tyll I have destroyed sir Launcelott’s kynne and hymselff bothe, othir ellis he to destroy me.” (Malory 685)

Another knight told Gawayne, spurring him to march against Launcelot at the Joyous Garde. Arthur’s realm became divided between subjects who were loyal to him and subjects who sympathized with Launcelot and Guinevere. At first, the fighting was half-hearted and reluctant on both sides, and Arthur would have been willing to be reconciled to Launcelot and Guinevere, but Gawayne provoked Launcelot’s men. They goaded Launcelot to fight if he did not want to be considered a coward. The greatest knights in the realm wounded and killed each other. At first, Launcelot’s conscience prevented him from fighting all out against Arthur. Once again, his men goaded him to live up to his image. After that, he decimated Arthur’s army. Nevertheless, when the Pope issued a Bull ordering the fighting to cease, and Launcelot returned Guinevere to Arthur, Launcelot and Arthur could still have been reconciled if not for Gawayne. After Launcelot was banished to France, Gawayne impelled Arthur to attack France with his forces. While Arthur was gone, Mordred usurped the throne.

Yet, this was still not the point of no return. Launcelot and Arthur would still have been reunited against Mordred if Arthur had been able to stall for a time until Launcelot could come to his aid. Arthur and Mordred would have signed a treaty granting Mordred sovereignty of Cornwall and Kent, as well as succession to the throne. Then, Launcelot would have arrived and helped Arthur defeat Mordred. The helpless enactment of a code of chivalry, however, led yet again to the deconstruction of Arthur’s England. As Arthur and Mordred met between their two armies to sign the treaty, a knight was bitten in the foot by a snake. He involuntarily withdrew his sword. Once he had done that, the two armies could not appear for a moment to be backing down. So many men were destroyed by the ensuing battle that only four survivors were left at nightfall. By this time, Arthur did not care anymore whether he lived or died, so he risked death to fight with Mordred. He was wounded in the head, and he died the next day.

The deconstruction of Camelot was complete. The need to achieve and maintain a reputation, the obligation to avenge the murder of family members, and the need to prove courage and prowess acted to turn the power of Arthur’s Round Table against itself. Rather than the men enacting their codes, their codes enacted them. Their chief means of getting and keeping power became taken over by the weakness, which had always been inherent in them – their power was dependent on their images, and their images were dependent on what other people thought of them. The fragile harmony that had reigned was inevitably sundered into dissonance.

Work Cited

Malory. Works. Ed. Eugene Vinaver. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.