Back
Clifford Tsan
Arthurian Literature ResearchPaperLancelot & Guinevere: A TimelessPassion
Thereare few tales of passionate, adulterous affairs which have affectedEuropean and American culture as greatly as the tale of Sir Lancelotand Guinevere. The countless retellings, spin-offs, and imitations inboth ancient and modern literature, folklore, poetry, and filmtestify to the tale's staying power. Tales such as this last becauseof their universality, because they contain something tried and true,some theme or message which humanity continues to find present in itseveryday existence despite time's passage. To this extent, perhapsthe tale's lasting presence is not such a boon, but insteadincriminating; the implication is that humanity continues to wallowin adultery and infidelity. Unfortunately, this is as true of modernsociety as it was of any other. That does not diminish the power ofthe tale, however, but instead its immediacy to our culture enhancesthe story's poignance, so much so that the tale has survived amillennium to be present in many different forms. Three notablerepresentations of the story stand out as testaments of theirrespective cultures; each different telling reveals some slight andother major differences in its audience's culture. Chrétien deTroyes' The Knight of the Cart, Sir Thomas Malory's The Knight of theCart, and Jerry Zucker's film First Knight all center around the samebasic story and many similar themes, yet they arrive at uniquelydifferent conclusions. In doing so, each of the three imparts sometelling aspect of the culture from which it was born and to which itwas delivered.
Chrétien'stales are a perfect reflection of the twelfth century, for theirexcellence and genius coincided with a general cultural revival inEurope. "In no field was the twelfth-century revival simply arenaissance in the narrow sense of the term. Besides a rebirth orregeneration of the ancient heritage, the century produced much thatwas original and creative" (Hoyt 327). Indeed, Chrétien'sworks reclaimed and forged anew the Arthurian legend; they were botha reworking of older material and a genesis of new literature. It washis conscious desire to create something new that separates his worksfrom previous Arthurian literature, and allowed him to make hisfoundation as an author the grounds of his contemporary society. Inother words, because Chrétien was creating, rather than simplyretelling, he was able to infuse much of his own culture into hisstories. This is evident in Chrétien's narrative voicethroughout The Knight of the Cart, which is clearly that of theeducated twelfth-century scholar. His prologue is a good example ofthat voice. Chrétien proposes to begin his story "withoutflattery [of the lady of Champagne]," yet immediately goes onto depict how someone else might flatter this same lady, as "the ladywho surpasses all women who are alive" (De Troyes 207). Such arefinement of a witty tongue is not to be found in Bede, Monmouth, orLayamon.
Yetthe aspects of The Knight of the Cart which tell us most of thetwelfth century are more than the author's voice. There are manyelements of the tale's plot which reveal certain things to thereader. The clearest instance is the story's central theme of courtlylove. Nowhere is courtly love stressed greater than in the tale ofLancelot and Guinevere, be it Chrétien's or Malory's; theconcept is of a knight sworn to his lady's service, a knight sodevoted to her that his loyalty to her is stronger than that towardshis king. It is no surprise that this theme figures so strongly inChrétien's tales. Courtly love "originated in Provence,France, in the twelfth century. It received its first great impetusfrom the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine" (Hastings 70). Marie ofChampagne, whom The Knight of the Cart is written for, was Eleanor'sdaughter. Thus courtly love was a significant theme in literature ofthe twelfth century, and doubtless Chrétien was well read. Infact, he was arguably the master of depicting courtly love accordingto its twelfth century rules. "The lady of the castle rather than thelord became the object of the knight's service, his homage, and hisfealty. As his midon (a French word for lord), she required his wholedevotion even when it led to insult and disgrace in terms of thefighting man's code" (Hastings 71).
Thereis no better example of this than Lancelot's dishonor in riding inthe cart. The nobles and gentry of the twelfth century,Chrétien's primary audience, would have understood this ideacompletely; Lancelot is so faithful to his lady that he will sufferany shame to rescue her. In the reader's eyes, then, Lancelot becomesmore honorable in his humiliation. Moreover, it is not the act ofriding in the cart that leads to Lancelot's shame, but his hesitationbefore jumping in: "[Lancelot] hesitated but two steps beforeclimbing in. He would regret this moment of hesitation and beaccursed and shamed for it; he would come to consider himselfill-used" (De Troyes 211). There could have been no single reader ofChrétien's during the twelfth century who did not shudder atthe thought of riding in a hangman's cart. In that society, such athing was a great dishonor. Yet the rules of courtly love dictatethat no dishonor is greater than failing to serve one's midon,especially a knight's failure to serve his lady, and to illustratethis absolute, Chrétien artfully juxtaposes the shame ofriding in the cart against that greatest shame ofhesitation.
Sucha concept may seem alien to later cultures, but as it figures soprominently in The Knight of the Cart, it tells us thatChrétien's twelfth century audience was well versed in thegame of courtly love and had no difficulty understanding Lancelot'sdilemma. The other important culture-specific aspect ofChrétien's romance is the concept of the supernatural. Thereis a multitude of strange, supernatural objects and events in thistale, ranging from the sword bridge to the heavy stone slab whichonly Lancelot can lift. Such elements are not present in laterversions of the tale, yet the supernatural is much more prevalent inearlier Arthurian legends. The reason for this is quite clear whenone looks at European history; it is not for no reason that the earlyMiddle Ages are known as the Dark Ages. Prior to the onset ofChristianity's widely universal grip on medieval Europe, paganreligions of nature-related deities were abundant in Europe. Thesereligions account for much of the supernatural one encounters inearlier Arthurian tales, especially those concerning Merlin, who istellingly absent from most stories written in later centuries. Yeteven in Chrétien's time, the supernatural was still a commonelement of European's lives - not so much the witnessing ofsupernatural events, but more often than not the fear and wardingagainst such things. "Pagan superstitions persisted in thecountryside although the clergy attempted to curb them. Fairy treesand fairy rings were identified and visited in the woodland[fairies were believed to bring good luck and wealth]. Everyvillage doubtless had its witch credited with magical powers"(Hastings 57). Such a culture would have had no trouble reading of asword bridge. There was no tongue in cheek when describing a stoneslab that only one man - the central hero, of course - couldlift.
Ashistory progressed and science advanced, however, the supernaturalbecame more and more discreditable and a theme of the past. Thus itis no surprise that the element does not appear in Malory's TheKnight of the Cart (nor in First Knight, for that matter.) Instead,Malory focuses primarily on the story's central plot, alteringseveral details from Chrétien's to make the story moreaccessible and believable to his audience. The elimination of thesupernatural is an example of this. Malory wrote his The Knight ofthe Cart during the fifteenth century, a time far different fromChrétien's era three centuries earlier. Christianity had beenorganized into a single, cohesive religious blanket over Europe, inthe form of Catholicism (Hay ch.VII). The continent-spanning grip ofthe Papal seat in Rome successfully eradicated most, if not all, ofthe pagan traditions that had allowed for Chrétien'ssupernaturalism in the form of witch hunts and persecution. HenceMalory neglects to include the sword bridge. Similarly, he alters thestructure of the feudal system in his tale. Whereas Chrétien'stale depicted numerous independent lords and barons, Malory mentionsonly two royal figures, King Arthur, to whom everyone appears to besubject, and King Bagdemagus, Mellyagaunce's father. This is a clearreflection of the evolution of the feudal system in the centuriesbetween Chrétien and Malory; by the fifteenth century, thedays of the independent baron were over. Years of ceaseless warfarehad killed off most of the barons and lords and their familial lines,and the strengthening of national identities paved the way for firmlyestablished monarchies to come to power in Europe (Wood ch.8). ThusMalory's audience would have found the idea of baron after baron witheach his own separate loyalties disconcerting, if not comical; intheir society, the citizens of a nation were subject primarily tothat nation's King. The adjustments Malory makes to the story'sstructure are fitting to his audience's tastes andexpectations.
Agreater change to the tale than these exists in Malory's portraits ofthe characters. Several figures have been modified to some extent,most notably Gawain and Mellyagaunce. Gawain himself is not inMalory's tale; instead he presents the reader with Lavain. Thesimilarity between his Lavain and Chrétien's Gawain isunmistakable, and the reader at once questions Malory's reason forchanging the character's name. In Chrétien's tale, Gawain ishis usual heroic self, but plays second fiddle to Lancelot'sprominence as the protagonist. The same is true of Lavain here; butMalory's Gawain, especially in The Death of King Arthur, is almost anantagonist to Lancelot. Thus perhaps Malory felt he would keep theintegrity and continuity of his tales as a collective volume intactthrough the invention of Lavain.
Thechanges made to Mellyagaunce have a far more significant effect onthe story. In both versions, this character has the traits ofcowardice, treachery, and selfishness, but in Chrétien'sversion Meleagant is a vicious, cruel man. He is bloodthirsty andeager to kill a helpless opponent, evident in his battles withLancelot wherein the hero refuses to fight after being commanded soby his lady. In Malory's tale, however, Mellyagaunce is such a"recreant knight" that he is afraid to do battle with Lancelot atall. When Lancelot arrives at his castle to save Guinevere from herconfinement, Mellyagaunce begs the Queen "that ye would take all inyour own hands, and that ye will rule my lord Sir Lancelot"--Chrétien's Meleagant would never once have ceded lordship toLancelot-- "And such cheer as may be made him in this poor castle, yeand he shall have until to-morn, and then may ye and all they returnagain unto Westminster" (Malory 59). Mellyagaunce went to a greatdeal of trouble and devious scheming to capture Queen Guinevere, yetnow that Lancelot has arrived, not even having breached the castlewalls, the villain is ready to turn Guinevere over and tuck tail andrun. This is a far cry different from Chrétien's antagonist.Perhaps the ultimate example of the difference between the twovillains of the same namesake is in the capturing of Lancelot. InChrétien's version, Lancelot is duped into confinement throughMeleagant's clever scheme involving a dwarf; in Malory's,Mellyagaunce proposes to give Lancelot a friendly tour of his castleand then drops the hero down a trap door. The act of treachery in thefirst at least requires a bit of scheming and a flair for evil deeds;in the latter, however, the villain is a simple, uncomplicated, andunintelligent coward.
Themost notable change in Malory's treatment of the Lancelot andGuinevere tale, however, is the change in the cart aspect of thestory. Malory retained Chrétien's title, The Knight of theCart, yet dropped the significance of the cart completely. InMalory's version, Lancelot does not hesitate before jumping on thecart, which here does not transport criminals but wood instead.Lancelot in fact kills one of the carters for barring him from ridingon the cart! Thus the theme of shame is eliminated from the story;yet Malory retains the theme of Lancelot's loyalty to his Queen.Indeed, the passion between them is equally prevalent as it was inChrétien, and their affair is presented in the same ambiguouslight. The one constant in both of their societies was the abundanceof sin and especially adultery; while the Church preached against allforms of sin, it never succeeded. "[Courtly love] was arebellion of both sexes against the strictures of the Church on theenjoyment of sexual love" (Hastings 70). As the Church grew morepowerful and popular across Europe, to the extent that it wasuniversal by Malory's time, it can be surmised that this rebelliongrew also. Thus neither Chrétien nor Malory condemns theadultery of their central characters - the very fact that Lancelotalways prevails seems rather to support it - and the reader is facedwith an ambiguous narrator. The issue of whether their affair is ajust product of true love or a sinful coupling that ought to bepunished is not answered in either story, and generallyavoided.
Medievalaudiences may have found this ambiguity comforting or refreshing.Avoiding the issue of justice concerning the affair may have sent outthe message that adultery between common people was acceptable ifkept in the dark and unpronounced. Yet modern readers find ittroubling because as a whole, modern society prefers questions to beanswered rather than to linger. There are academics and a portion ofthe society which is arguably more intelligent than the rest whichcan appreciate a burning, lingering, and unanswerable question, butit is undeniable that popular culture tends to find issues andstories that are clearly black and white the most enjoyable. Perhapsthe best example of this is Hollywood. The films which gross the mostmoney are those which deal with cardboard, one-dimensional characterswho are either good or evil; in the recent film Independence Day,American soldiers are pitted against a stock-villain alien raceintent on complete annihilation of the human race. The movie went onto be one of the highest grossing films of all time, and that fact isvery revealing of modern popular culture. It is much easier for anaudience to view a storyline wherein the issues are clearlydelineated between good and evil, just and unjust, rather than atroubling storyline where such issues are hard to discern.
JerryZucker's First Knight falls somewhere in the middle. It is neithercompletely differentiated between right and wrong, nor is it asdubious and indeterminate as Chrétien or Malory. The mostprominent causes of this are the changes made to the characters. Thestory itself has been altered to incorporate Malory's The Death ofKing Arthur, such that Malagant becomes Arthur's final nemesis ratherthan Mordred; but such changes to the story are mere Hollywoodconveniences, allowing the filmmakers to present a more traditionalconclusion to the Lancelot and Guinevere tale than The Knight of theCart would otherwise allow. Since the film centers around Lancelot,Guinevere, Arthur, and Malagant, the modifications in these fourcharacters are what reveal the most telling aspects of our modernsociety and what separate this version from Chrétien andMalory so dramatically.
Arthurand Malagant are presented as polar opposites. Arthur is old, with anoble but slightly heavy bearing and a regal gray beard. Malagant isyoung, in his physical prime and deadly with a sword. Arthurrepresents freedom and peace, whereas Malagant believes the way torule is to instill fear in subjects' hearts. These elements are all afar cry from their traditional counterparts. In the legends, Arthuris roughly the same age as Lancelot, and while he rarely fightsbattles in Chrétien or Malory, it is not suggested that he isout of shape. And the absolute finality of his lordship is neverquestioned. The Arthur of First Knight implies that he rules becausethe people allow him to do so; the Arthur of old ruled because it washis right to do so. Malagant, likewise, has little in common withMeleagant or Mellyaguance, save for his trickery. This Malagant is animposing and fearless warrior. He shows none of the cowardice thatcolors Mellyaguance's character, and he outdoes Meleagant in hisruthlessness. Both Arthur and Malagant have been "updated" for oursociety. Americans would have a difficult time relating to a rulersuch as the traditional Arthur; in First Knight, Arthur seems more ademocrat than a monarch, and the equality of his Round Table suggestsa republic. Malagant is a more evil and sinister villain whencowardice is subtracted from his character's composition. The resultis simple: moviegoers have a much easier time loving Arthur andhating Malagant than they otherwise would.
Thechanges in Lancelot and Guinevere also reflect our culture's love ofsimpler archetypes. Lancelot is now a wanderer, a man with no purposein life and a troubled past. If the name Lancelot was removed fromthe role, it would sound similar to so many other modern movies.Americans have been attracted to this archetype for decades, eversince James Dean was the famous rebel without a cause. The rolereflects many defining themes of American culture, from the self-mademan to the life of the open road, and is further developed in thelove aspect. Lancelot falls in love with Guinevere at first sight andhe is bold and unafraid in making his advances towards her. It isarguable that no one could have played this part of the role betterthan Richard Gere, known for his masculine, American male bravadowhen it comes to courtship. Indeed, Lancelot represents nothing ofancient English nobility and chivalry, but every American male idealthe filmmakers could think of. He is an amalgam of John Wayne, ClintEastwood, the Fonz, and Humphrey Bogart, given the name Lancelot asif in afterthought. Lancelot's character has been altered so greatlyin order to give the mass audience what it wants; not a knight who isso intent in his love and loyalty to Guinevere that he would cuthimself on a sword bridge, but the archetypal American male actionhero. This particular Lancelot shows nothing of his former knightlyvirtue. He kisses Guinevere when unbidden and unwanted, he showsArthur little respect in their first meeting together, and he criesat one point when he feels that Guinevere will never requite hislove. The Lancelot of old would die of shame if he knew what he hadbeen turned into.
Yetaudiences find this new hero much more believable than his namesake,as he reflects our culture's expectations in a protagonist.Similarly, Guinevere has been transformed from the helpless Queeninto a lady of strength and nobility in order to meet modernsociety's ideal of a heroine. American moviegoers would be outragedwith the Guinevere of old, a woman who had to constantly be rescuedand could do nothing for herself. First Knight's Guinevere takesaction into her own hands, even when she is being rescued byLancelot. She asks Lancelot for that passionate second kiss; it isnot simply given to her. As abominable as the phrase may be, thisGuinevere is clearly a "Guinevere of the 90's."
Theresult of all of these changes is that the tale itself is updated tofit into our society's tastes and expectations of these characters.We can more easily identify with characters who fit our own societalmold than with characters from another age. Yet the importantquestion to be asked in the process of this updating is whether theintegrity of the original tale is lost or compromised during thesechanges. Fifteenth century adherents to Chrétien's works mayhave asked the same question upon the publication of Malory's tales.In the case of First Knight, the integrity of the original tale isclearly done away with; however, it is replaced with an integrity ofits own. The movie works well on its own level, within the realm ofmodern society. In a similar fashion, Malory's Knight of the Cart isultimately a different story from Chrétien's, yet both havetheir own unique integrity and unquestionable worth asliterature.
Thereason all three tellings of the Lancelot and Guinevere tale can beconsidered valuable pieces of literature is that each reflects itsculture so well. Chrétien and Malory both capture the myriadof ways in which elements such as the supernatural, or courtly love,or chivalry and nobility versus cowardice and treachery were allevident in their cultures. As such, their works appealed highly totheir audiences. Similarly, First Knight captures the archetypes ofhero, villain, and lover in our own culture without completelydebasing them to stereotype. The actors are allowed sufficient spaceand dialogue to develop Lancelot, Guinevere, and the rest into morethan stock heroes and villains. The most striking aspect of the firsttwo tellings of the tale, however, are their appeal beyond theconfines of their own audiences. Readers in the centuries followingChrétien and Malory's time enjoyed the tales enough to propelthem into our own era, to be turned into movies like First Knight.The appeal is that even though they have so many diverse elements, somany cultural-specific themes and issues, the central story of aswelteringly passionate and adulterous affair remains applicable toany given society. And thus it will be interesting to see whetherFirst Knight catches on with audiences to come. Its affair wasadmittedly less than sweltering, although the one scene in whichLancelot and Guinevere finally kiss is unforgettable. The passionitself, however, is questionably consummated - the two never makelove. Hence it remains to be seen whether First Knight will join theranks of Arthurian legend alongside Chrétien and Malory'sworks. However, so long as society continues to commit the sin ofadultery, to be helpless in the face of a burning and passionatelove, one can be certain that the tale of Lancelot and Guinevere willbe retold again and again.
Works Cited
De Troyes, Chrétien. ArthurianRomances.London: Penguin Books, 1991.
Hastings, Margaret. Medieval EuropeanSociety, 1000-1450 New York: Random House, 1971.
Hay, Denys. The Medieval Centuries.Great Britain: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1964.
Hoyt, Robert S. Europe in the MiddleAges. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, Inc., 1966.
Vinaver, Eugene, ed. King Arthur& His Knights: Selected Tales by Sir Thomas Malory. London:Oxford University Press, 1975.*
Wood, Charles T. The Age of Chivalry:Manners and Morals 1000 - 1450. New York: Universe Books,1970.
Additional References
Ferber, Stanley, and Sandro Sticca,ed. The Eleventh Century. The Center for Medieval and EarlyRenaissance Studies State University of New York atBinghamton.
Levy, Bernard, and Sandro Sticca, ed.The Twelfth Century. The Center for Medieval and Early RenaissanceStudies State University of New York at Binghamton.
Back
