In the legend of King Arthur, some authors argue that Arthur was not as noble as believed, whereas others after the medieval period argue that he was a noble and chivalrous leader. Writers in the medieval period judge the personal qualities of King Arthur to determine whether he was chivalrous, whereas authors after the Middle Ages focus on his achievements. Arthur, after he pulls the sword from a stone, becomes the next king of England. Despite coming to power at a young age, he transformed a weak nation into one that would be a worldwide influence for centuries to come. Although he has achieved a lot, medieval authors such as Chrétien De Troyes maintain that Arthur was still not chivalrous because of an incident that occurred when Arthur was in his court. De Troyes, contrary to authors in other time periods, emphasizes that even though a King can achieve great things, what …show more content…
Later authors, such as Amelia Josephine Burr, emphasize that King Arthur was a noble leader who did what was best for his people. In the early versions of the legend of King Arthur, authors such as Chrétien De Troyes assert that Arthur’s personal conduct overshadowed everything, whereas authors in later periods, such as Amelia Joseph Burr, assert that King Arthur’s achievements are what make him chivalrous. Writers such as De Troyes deemed that a leader’s actions reflect in his followers, whereas Bishop believes a leader is someone who protects the interests of his people.
In Chrétien De Troyes’ poem, “Yvain, the Knight of Lion,” De Troyes describes an incident where King Arthur, while at his court, suddenly left everyone in the court and ran to Queen Guinevere. De Troyes also mentions that the knights of the Round Table have not been following the Code of Chivalry, which reflects poorly on Arthur’s leadership. Arthur’s followers perceive this as Arthur quitting on them. Before Arthur gets to the queen, a woman named Kay