Back

Clifford Tsan

Arthurian Literature Research Paper

Lancelot & Guinevere: A Timeless Passion

There are few tales of passionate, adulterous affairs which have affected European and American culture as greatly as the tale of Sir Lancelot and Guinevere. The countless retellings, spin-offs, and imitations in both ancient and modern literature, folklore, poetry, and film testify to the tale's staying power. Tales such as this last because of their universality, because they contain something tried and true, some theme or message which humanity continues to find present in its everyday existence despite time's passage. To this extent, perhaps the tale's lasting presence is not such a boon, but instead incriminating; the implication is that humanity continues to wallow in adultery and infidelity. Unfortunately, this is as true of modern society as it was of any other. That does not diminish the power of the tale, however, but instead its immediacy to our culture enhances the story's poignance, so much so that the tale has survived a millennium to be present in many different forms. Three notable representations of the story stand out as testaments of their respective cultures; each different telling reveals some slight and other major differences in its audience's culture. Chrétien de Troyes' The Knight of the Cart, Sir Thomas Malory's The Knight of the Cart, and Jerry Zucker's film First Knight all center around the same basic story and many similar themes, yet they arrive at uniquely different conclusions. In doing so, each of the three imparts some telling aspect of the culture from which it was born and to which it was delivered.

Chrétien's tales are a perfect reflection of the twelfth century, for their excellence and genius coincided with a general cultural revival in Europe. "In no field was the twelfth-century revival simply a renaissance in the narrow sense of the term. Besides a rebirth or regeneration of the ancient heritage, the century produced much that was original and creative" (Hoyt 327). Indeed, Chrétien's works reclaimed and forged anew the Arthurian legend; they were both a reworking of older material and a genesis of new literature. It was his conscious desire to create something new that separates his works from previous Arthurian literature, and allowed him to make his foundation as an author the grounds of his contemporary society. In other words, because Chrétien was creating, rather than simply retelling, he was able to infuse much of his own culture into his stories. This is evident in Chrétien's narrative voice throughout The Knight of the Cart, which is clearly that of the educated twelfth-century scholar. His prologue is a good example of that voice. Chrétien proposes to begin his story "without flattery [of the lady of Champagne]," yet immediately goes on to depict how someone else might flatter this same lady, as "the lady who surpasses all women who are alive" (De Troyes 207). Such a refinement of a witty tongue is not to be found in Bede, Monmouth, or Layamon.

Yet the aspects of The Knight of the Cart which tell us most of the twelfth century are more than the author's voice. There are many elements of the tale's plot which reveal certain things to the reader. The clearest instance is the story's central theme of courtly love. Nowhere is courtly love stressed greater than in the tale of Lancelot and Guinevere, be it Chrétien's or Malory's; the concept is of a knight sworn to his lady's service, a knight so devoted to her that his loyalty to her is stronger than that towards his king. It is no surprise that this theme figures so strongly in Chrétien's tales. Courtly love "originated in Provence, France, in the twelfth century. It received its first great impetus from the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine" (Hastings 70). Marie of Champagne, whom The Knight of the Cart is written for, was Eleanor's daughter. Thus courtly love was a significant theme in literature of the twelfth century, and doubtless Chrétien was well read. In fact, he was arguably the master of depicting courtly love according to its twelfth century rules. "The lady of the castle rather than the lord became the object of the knight's service, his homage, and his fealty. As his midon (a French word for lord), she required his whole devotion even when it led to insult and disgrace in terms of the fighting man's code" (Hastings 71).

There is no better example of this than Lancelot's dishonor in riding in the cart. The nobles and gentry of the twelfth century, Chrétien's primary audience, would have understood this idea completely; Lancelot is so faithful to his lady that he will suffer any shame to rescue her. In the reader's eyes, then, Lancelot becomes more honorable in his humiliation. Moreover, it is not the act of riding in the cart that leads to Lancelot's shame, but his hesitation before jumping in: "[Lancelot] hesitated but two steps before climbing in. He would regret this moment of hesitation and be accursed and shamed for it; he would come to consider himself ill-used" (De Troyes 211). There could have been no single reader of Chrétien's during the twelfth century who did not shudder at the thought of riding in a hangman's cart. In that society, such a thing was a great dishonor. Yet the rules of courtly love dictate that no dishonor is greater than failing to serve one's midon, especially a knight's failure to serve his lady, and to illustrate this absolute, Chrétien artfully juxtaposes the shame of riding in the cart against that greatest shame of hesitation.

Such a concept may seem alien to later cultures, but as it figures so prominently in The Knight of the Cart, it tells us that Chrétien's twelfth century audience was well versed in the game of courtly love and had no difficulty understanding Lancelot's dilemma. The other important culture-specific aspect of Chrétien's romance is the concept of the supernatural. There is a multitude of strange, supernatural objects and events in this tale, ranging from the sword bridge to the heavy stone slab which only Lancelot can lift. Such elements are not present in later versions of the tale, yet the supernatural is much more prevalent in earlier Arthurian legends. The reason for this is quite clear when one looks at European history; it is not for no reason that the early Middle Ages are known as the Dark Ages. Prior to the onset of Christianity's widely universal grip on medieval Europe, pagan religions of nature-related deities were abundant in Europe. These religions account for much of the supernatural one encounters in earlier Arthurian tales, especially those concerning Merlin, who is tellingly absent from most stories written in later centuries. Yet even in Chrétien's time, the supernatural was still a common element of European's lives - not so much the witnessing of supernatural events, but more often than not the fear and warding against such things. "Pagan superstitions persisted in the countryside although the clergy attempted to curb them. Fairy trees and fairy rings were identified and visited in the woodland [fairies were believed to bring good luck and wealth]. Every village doubtless had its witch credited with magical powers" (Hastings 57). Such a culture would have had no trouble reading of a sword bridge. There was no tongue in cheek when describing a stone slab that only one man - the central hero, of course - could lift.

As history progressed and science advanced, however, the supernatural became more and more discreditable and a theme of the past. Thus it is no surprise that the element does not appear in Malory's The Knight of the Cart (nor in First Knight, for that matter.) Instead, Malory focuses primarily on the story's central plot, altering several details from Chrétien's to make the story more accessible and believable to his audience. The elimination of the supernatural is an example of this. Malory wrote his The Knight of the Cart during the fifteenth century, a time far different from Chrétien's era three centuries earlier. Christianity had been organized into a single, cohesive religious blanket over Europe, in the form of Catholicism (Hay ch.VII). The continent-spanning grip of the Papal seat in Rome successfully eradicated most, if not all, of the pagan traditions that had allowed for Chrétien's supernaturalism in the form of witch hunts and persecution. Hence Malory neglects to include the sword bridge. Similarly, he alters the structure of the feudal system in his tale. Whereas Chrétien's tale depicted numerous independent lords and barons, Malory mentions only two royal figures, King Arthur, to whom everyone appears to be subject, and King Bagdemagus, Mellyagaunce's father. This is a clear reflection of the evolution of the feudal system in the centuries between Chrétien and Malory; by the fifteenth century, the days of the independent baron were over. Years of ceaseless warfare had killed off most of the barons and lords and their familial lines, and the strengthening of national identities paved the way for firmly established monarchies to come to power in Europe (Wood ch.8). Thus Malory's audience would have found the idea of baron after baron with each his own separate loyalties disconcerting, if not comical; in their society, the citizens of a nation were subject primarily to that nation's King. The adjustments Malory makes to the story's structure are fitting to his audience's tastes and expectations.

A greater change to the tale than these exists in Malory's portraits of the characters. Several figures have been modified to some extent, most notably Gawain and Mellyagaunce. Gawain himself is not in Malory's tale; instead he presents the reader with Lavain. The similarity between his Lavain and Chrétien's Gawain is unmistakable, and the reader at once questions Malory's reason for changing the character's name. In Chrétien's tale, Gawain is his usual heroic self, but plays second fiddle to Lancelot's prominence as the protagonist. The same is true of Lavain here; but Malory's Gawain, especially in The Death of King Arthur, is almost an antagonist to Lancelot. Thus perhaps Malory felt he would keep the integrity and continuity of his tales as a collective volume intact through the invention of Lavain.

The changes made to Mellyagaunce have a far more significant effect on the story. In both versions, this character has the traits of cowardice, treachery, and selfishness, but in Chrétien's version Meleagant is a vicious, cruel man. He is bloodthirsty and eager to kill a helpless opponent, evident in his battles with Lancelot wherein the hero refuses to fight after being commanded so by his lady. In Malory's tale, however, Mellyagaunce is such a "recreant knight" that he is afraid to do battle with Lancelot at all. When Lancelot arrives at his castle to save Guinevere from her confinement, Mellyagaunce begs the Queen "that ye would take all in your own hands, and that ye will rule my lord Sir Lancelot" --Chrétien's Meleagant would never once have ceded lordship to Lancelot-- "And such cheer as may be made him in this poor castle, ye and he shall have until to-morn, and then may ye and all they return again unto Westminster" (Malory 59). Mellyagaunce went to a great deal of trouble and devious scheming to capture Queen Guinevere, yet now that Lancelot has arrived, not even having breached the castle walls, the villain is ready to turn Guinevere over and tuck tail and run. This is a far cry different from Chrétien's antagonist. Perhaps the ultimate example of the difference between the two villains of the same namesake is in the capturing of Lancelot. In Chrétien's version, Lancelot is duped into confinement through Meleagant's clever scheme involving a dwarf; in Malory's, Mellyagaunce proposes to give Lancelot a friendly tour of his castle and then drops the hero down a trap door. The act of treachery in the first at least requires a bit of scheming and a flair for evil deeds; in the latter, however, the villain is a simple, uncomplicated, and unintelligent coward.

The most notable change in Malory's treatment of the Lancelot and Guinevere tale, however, is the change in the cart aspect of the story. Malory retained Chrétien's title, The Knight of the Cart, yet dropped the significance of the cart completely. In Malory's version, Lancelot does not hesitate before jumping on the cart, which here does not transport criminals but wood instead. Lancelot in fact kills one of the carters for barring him from riding on 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 in Chrétien, and their affair is presented in the same ambiguous light. The one constant in both of their societies was the abundance of sin and especially adultery; while the Church preached against all forms of sin, it never succeeded. "[Courtly love] was a rebellion of both sexes against the strictures of the Church on the enjoyment of sexual love" (Hastings 70). As the Church grew more powerful and popular across Europe, to the extent that it was universal by Malory's time, it can be surmised that this rebellion grew also. Thus neither Chrétien nor Malory condemns the adultery of their central characters - the very fact that Lancelot always prevails seems rather to support it - and the reader is faced with an ambiguous narrator. The issue of whether their affair is a just product of true love or a sinful coupling that ought to be punished is not answered in either story, and generally avoided.

Medieval audiences may have found this ambiguity comforting or refreshing. Avoiding the issue of justice concerning the affair may have sent out the message that adultery between common people was acceptable if kept in the dark and unpronounced. Yet modern readers find it troubling because as a whole, modern society prefers questions to be answered rather than to linger. There are academics and a portion of the society which is arguably more intelligent than the rest which can appreciate a burning, lingering, and unanswerable question, but it is undeniable that popular culture tends to find issues and stories that are clearly black and white the most enjoyable. Perhaps the best example of this is Hollywood. The films which gross the most money are those which deal with cardboard, one-dimensional characters who are either good or evil; in the recent film Independence Day, American soldiers are pitted against a stock-villain alien race intent on complete annihilation of the human race. The movie went on to be one of the highest grossing films of all time, and that fact is very revealing of modern popular culture. It is much easier for an audience to view a storyline wherein the issues are clearly delineated between good and evil, just and unjust, rather than a troubling storyline where such issues are hard to discern.

Jerry Zucker's First Knight falls somewhere in the middle. It is neither completely differentiated between right and wrong, nor is it as dubious and indeterminate as Chrétien or Malory. The most prominent causes of this are the changes made to the characters. The story itself has been altered to incorporate Malory's The Death of King Arthur, such that Malagant becomes Arthur's final nemesis rather than Mordred; but such changes to the story are mere Hollywood conveniences, allowing the filmmakers to present a more traditional conclusion to the Lancelot and Guinevere tale than The Knight of the Cart would otherwise allow. Since the film centers around Lancelot, Guinevere, Arthur, and Malagant, the modifications in these four characters are what reveal the most telling aspects of our modern society and what separate this version from Chrétien and Malory so dramatically.

Arthur and Malagant are presented as polar opposites. Arthur is old, with a noble but slightly heavy bearing and a regal gray beard. Malagant is young, in his physical prime and deadly with a sword. Arthur represents freedom and peace, whereas Malagant believes the way to rule is to instill fear in subjects' hearts. These elements are all a far cry from their traditional counterparts. In the legends, Arthur is roughly the same age as Lancelot, and while he rarely fights battles in Chrétien or Malory, it is not suggested that he is out of shape. And the absolute finality of his lordship is never questioned. The Arthur of First Knight implies that he rules because the people allow him to do so; the Arthur of old ruled because it was his right to do so. Malagant, likewise, has little in common with Meleagant or Mellyaguance, save for his trickery. This Malagant is an imposing and fearless warrior. He shows none of the cowardice that colors Mellyaguance's character, and he outdoes Meleagant in his ruthlessness. Both Arthur and Malagant have been "updated" for our society. Americans would have a difficult time relating to a ruler such as the traditional Arthur; in First Knight, Arthur seems more a democrat than a monarch, and the equality of his Round Table suggests a republic. Malagant is a more evil and sinister villain when cowardice is subtracted from his character's composition. The result is simple: moviegoers have a much easier time loving Arthur and hating Malagant than they otherwise would.

The changes in Lancelot and Guinevere also reflect our culture's love of simpler archetypes. Lancelot is now a wanderer, a man with no purpose in life and a troubled past. If the name Lancelot was removed from the role, it would sound similar to so many other modern movies. Americans have been attracted to this archetype for decades, ever since James Dean was the famous rebel without a cause. The role reflects many defining themes of American culture, from the self-made man to the life of the open road, and is further developed in the love aspect. Lancelot falls in love with Guinevere at first sight and he is bold and unafraid in making his advances towards her. It is arguable that no one could have played this part of the role better than Richard Gere, known for his masculine, American male bravado when it comes to courtship. Indeed, Lancelot represents nothing of ancient English nobility and chivalry, but every American male ideal the filmmakers could think of. He is an amalgam of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, the Fonz, and Humphrey Bogart, given the name Lancelot as if in afterthought. Lancelot's character has been altered so greatly in order to give the mass audience what it wants; not a knight who is so intent in his love and loyalty to Guinevere that he would cut himself on a sword bridge, but the archetypal American male action hero. This particular Lancelot shows nothing of his former knightly virtue. He kisses Guinevere when unbidden and unwanted, he shows Arthur little respect in their first meeting together, and he cries at one point when he feels that Guinevere will never requite his love. The Lancelot of old would die of shame if he knew what he had been turned into.

Yet audiences 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 Queen into a lady of strength and nobility in order to meet modern society's ideal of a heroine. American moviegoers would be outraged with the Guinevere of old, a woman who had to constantly be rescued and could do nothing for herself. First Knight's Guinevere takes action into her own hands, even when she is being rescued by Lancelot. She asks Lancelot for that passionate second kiss; it is not simply given to her. As abominable as the phrase may be, this Guinevere is clearly a "Guinevere of the 90's."

The result of all of these changes is that the tale itself is updated to fit into our society's tastes and expectations of these characters. We can more easily identify with characters who fit our own societal mold than with characters from another age. Yet the important question to be asked in the process of this updating is whether the integrity of the original tale is lost or compromised during these changes. Fifteenth century adherents to Chrétien's works may have asked the same question upon the publication of Malory's tales. In the case of First Knight, the integrity of the original tale is clearly done away with; however, it is replaced with an integrity of its own. The movie works well on its own level, within the realm of modern society. In a similar fashion, Malory's Knight of the Cart is ultimately a different story from Chrétien's, yet both have their own unique integrity and unquestionable worth as literature.

The reason all three tellings of the Lancelot and Guinevere tale can be considered valuable pieces of literature is that each reflects its culture so well. Chrétien and Malory both capture the myriad of ways in which elements such as the supernatural, or courtly love, or chivalry and nobility versus cowardice and treachery were all evident in their cultures. As such, their works appealed highly to their audiences. Similarly, First Knight captures the archetypes of hero, villain, and lover in our own culture without completely debasing them to stereotype. The actors are allowed sufficient space and dialogue to develop Lancelot, Guinevere, and the rest into more than stock heroes and villains. The most striking aspect of the first two tellings of the tale, however, are their appeal beyond the confines of their own audiences. Readers in the centuries following Chrétien and Malory's time enjoyed the tales enough to propel them into our own era, to be turned into movies like First Knight. The appeal is that even though they have so many diverse elements, so many cultural-specific themes and issues, the central story of a swelteringly passionate and adulterous affair remains applicable to any given society. And thus it will be interesting to see whether First Knight catches on with audiences to come. Its affair was admittedly less than sweltering, although the one scene in which Lancelot and Guinevere finally kiss is unforgettable. The passion itself, however, is questionably consummated - the two never make love. Hence it remains to be seen whether First Knight will join the ranks of Arthurian legend alongside Chrétien and Malory's works. However, so long as society continues to commit the sin of adultery, to be helpless in the face of a burning and passionate love, one can be certain that the tale of Lancelot and Guinevere will be retold again and again.

Works Cited

De Troyes, Chrétien. Arthurian Romances.London: Penguin Books, 1991.

Hastings, Margaret. Medieval European Society, 1000-1450 New York: Random House, 1971.

Hay, Denys. The Medieval Centuries. Great Britain: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1964.

Hoyt, Robert S. Europe in the Middle Ages. 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 Early Renaissance Studies State University of New York at Binghamton.

Levy, Bernard, and Sandro Sticca, ed. The Twelfth Century. The Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies State University of New York at Binghamton.

Back