 |
| Lancelot from Arthur (2004) |
In creating the Morte, Malory drew on several sources,
including various parts of the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate cycles, the Prose Tristan, and the Alliterative Morte Arthure and the Stanzaic Morte Arthur; but he was not a slavish
translator. He reshaped his originals, omitted much that was not relevant to
his purpose and even created new sections to advance his themes. One of the
ways that Malory reworked earlier texts was by bringing Lancelot into
prominence and making him the central character, more important even than
Arthur in the overall scheme of the book.
One of the things that makes
Lancelot such a significant and interesting character is that, in his attempt
to live up to his reputation as the best of knights, he strives for perfection
in all of the codes that a knight should be subject to. He is more chivalric
and courtly than any other knight; he seeks adventure, champions women and the
oppressed, acts in a courtly manner and serves his king at home and abroad to a
degree unachieved by anyone else. He is the truest of all lovers never even
considering another woman. And he strives to perfect himself spiritually as he
seeks the Holy Grail. Of course he fails to be perfect in all these areas –
partly because they place conflicting demands on him. By being a true lover to
Guinevere he fails in the quest for the Grail and he is less than loyal to his
king. But the attempt to adhere to the conflicting codes is what gives Lancelot
his grandeur; and the very fact of those conflicts is what makes him the sort
of character with whom readers for centuries have been able to identify, even
as they recognise his failings – or perhaps because they recognise his failings
– in the great enterprise he has undertaken. Lancelot’s prominence does not
negate the centrality of Arthur or the roles of the vast cast of other
fascinating characters in the Morte.
Indeed, it is the wealth of characters and tales in the book that has made it
such a treasure trove for future artists. But Lancelot’s character and conflict
are central unifying elements in the book; and he is the one against whom all
the others are measured. [Lupack, Guide
to Arthurian Literature and Legend, 2007, pp.134-135]
 |
| Lancelot and Guinevere |
Blog question: Do you identify with Malory’s Lancelot? If so, why? And,
if not, why not?
In any society and any historical period it is the burden of thoughtful people to discover necessary conflicts between different expected codes of conduct and the execution of them. As students of the liberal arts, I would hope that the entire class could find similarities between themselves and Malory’s Lancelot, in his commitment to ideals and his championing of the oppressed.
ReplyDeleteIt is not Steinbeck’s identification of Malory’s faults in Lancelot that gives me pause. It is the social construction of chivalry and the notions of ‘love’ that prevent any firm self-identification with ANY of Malory’s characters or themes. As a child, I may have wanted to be “a knight” when I grew up, but as a modern adult man I have come to a different understanding of chivalry and of valour. This understanding is divorced from the medieval association of an ‘ideal masculinity’ with aggression and a talent for violence, associations that I find psychologically infantile.
Likewise with such absurdly conceived notions of love -the courtly ideal that rests in Lancelot’s two decade fixation is just that. His fixation is obsessive, self-interested and psychologically barren. Imagining ‘love’ as something not requiring the full participation of another party is a notion best left in the fifteenth century. Lupack may describe Malory’s Lancelot as “a true lover to Guinevere” but our own conceptions of ‘truly loving’ a person are necessarily radically removed from Malory’s conceptions, informed as they are by the culture and religious ideas of his time.
No. I cannot meaningfully identify with Malory’s Lancelot.
I am may be speaking as a female romanticist who likes epic tales, but how can I not identify with Malory’s portrayal of Lancelot?! This knight possesses qualities that would make most girls swoon – chivalrous, loyal, altruistic, just to name a few. This makes him an ideal knight for King Arthur, but Lancelot’s love for Arthur’s wife Guinevere gives him internal conflict. He proves his love and devotion to Guinevere countless of times, such as becoming a monk when Guinevere joins a convent, and any of his actions that seem to indicate he’s betraying her can be justified (such as wearing another lady’s token to remain anonymous). He continues to love Guinevere despite all the hardships that he endures and the uncertainty of whether he is able to have any form of a relationship with her. However, all these acts are also seen as opposing Arthur, which makes Lancelot a dreadful friend despite being a great lover. Somehow, this trait seems to make Lancelot more appealing: a knight who struggles to express his love for a woman in an attempt to maintain honour and devotion to his friend and king.
ReplyDeleteIn that sense, Lancelot can be perceived as an anti-hero, and it's difficult not to find some sort of reasoning behind his cations. Therefore, I sympathise with Lancelot, and am able to relate to his struggles and story. However, whether such actions can be mimicked and be morally acceptable in modern society is another story.
I admire Lancelot as a man of constancy; in his unwavering devotion to his lover and mission to be a champion of chivalry and all other knightly ideals. I also despise Lancelot as a man blinded by a love which was politically disastrous. I would have preferred him to moon over Guinevere from a distance and never declare his love unless Arthur was removed from the picture (but I guess I simply prefer love stories with happy endings). I identify with Lancelot in his passionate dedication to his beliefs, but I find that the blind devotion of a man so committed to his ideals unbelievable. Surely he would have seen from the start how destructive a dalliance with the Queen would be, both to his personal goals and the lives of those around him, and thus his strength of purpose and devotion to his knightly code would have prevented him from becoming her lover? To become a knight of such valour and skill it would have demanded from him not only sweat and tears, but focus, self-control and determination. Would someone who has sacrificed so much for his dreams give up on them for a love that could only end in tragedy? I guess what Malory’s story of Lancelot is trying to convince us of is that love conquers reason, even in those with the strongest self-control, and can bring a good man to commit terrible wrongs (as Lancelot demonstrates when he kills Gareth) and stray from his chosen path (for as Lupack states “By being a true lover to Guinevere, he [Lancelot] fails in the quest for the Grail”). I do not believe this, so I guess I don’t identify with Lancelot.
ReplyDeleteI admire all the responses so far they expolore profound points and excellent ideas. the one thing i feel i can realy relate with Malory's Lancelot is the strive for perfection. I feel that we always strive for perfection in homework and essays at university. Just as Lancelot strived for perfection in the chivalrous code. I also admire the courage and persistence of Lancelot; in his adventurers he always takes he courageous path and generally comes out on top. His commitment to Arthur’s wife over 24 years is also quite impressive.
ReplyDeleteHowever,I do not relate with Lancelot in his relationship with the Holy Grail, as I am not an overly religious person and can see the idea behind the quest. However I can’t relate to it.
I agree wholeheartedly with Tiffany!
ReplyDeleteLancelot is portrayed by Malory to be a man worth entrusting with the title of your best friend; chivalrous, altruistic, always ready to help a damsel out. I also agree that he is an anti-hero. However, it is interesting that he is initially presented to us as the epitome of the classic hero, and that it is a love affair that brings about the ruin of the relationship between the King and the man who he trusted the most.
As romances are typically thought of to be the impetus for heroic actions, I believe it is genius on Malory's part for making it the cause of readers to have to "pick sides" between Arthur and Lancelot.
In answer to the question though, I don't think it's really possible for a modern day audience to ever identify with Lancelot; there seems to be no justification for ruining the political atmosphere because you were in love with the boss's wife. However, it is nice to read about it!
I have to partly agree with everyone's comments so far. Lancelot is obviously written to be the perfect knight - it's explicitly stated - in being more chivilrous, brave, loyal etc. than any of the other characters. However I have to agree with Joey that his love for Guinivere is in fact obsessive, and it is this obsessive love that leads to ruin. I have to wonder if Malory is trying to push the idea of everything in moderation. This fixation on Guinivere leads me to perceive Lancelot as somewhat hopeless (and a little creepy), but then again I view Romeo and Juliet the same - I guess I'm just not a hopeless romantic. That's actually what I dislike about Lancelot - his situation is essentially hopeless yet he stays 'loyal' to Guinivere for years. That isn't romantic, it's tragic and more than a little ridiculous. His obsessive love for Guinivere coupled with his 'perfect' virtues makes him a very flat character to me - seemingly no flaws (apart from his stalking issues) and embodying the knightly ideals.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree though with Matthew in that Lancelot's constant striving for perfection is the only relatable quality since we always want to be greater than we are.
I have to agree with what everyone's said so far. His striving for perfection and devotion to Guinevere are all things I can relate to, however it is his inner conflict between his devotion to Arthur and love for Guinevere that I feel really resonate with me today. I think that back when it was written, Lancelot would have been seen as a betrayer of Arthur and it would be quite clear that an affair of this kind was considered treacherous. Courtly conduct in the medieval period appears to be quite a black and white. Today, although there is a prevailing set of laws that govern crimes (which to a certain extent is related to morality), we don't have a code of behaviour that tells us right from wrong, we have to decide based on our own values and judgement. This is what makes Lancelot's conflict so appealing. Everyone has those moments where you are put in a morally ambiguous situation, not necessarily trying to stay away from cheating on someone, but other things, that result in this inner dialogue and no matter which conclusion is reached, you feel as if you are betraying part of your own moral code. The difficulty for Lancelot in wanting to be loyal to Arthur, yet wanting to be loyal to his love for Guinevere is stuck in such a dire situation and it is this moral conflict and trying to uphold your own set of values that I can relate to.
ReplyDeleteLancelot is an identifiable character because of what he symbolizes however is also a character who the reader struggles to identify with. On the one hand, Lancelot symbolizes the human desire to strive for perfection as well as our failing to reach this perfection. In this sense Lancelot is an identifiable character across different cultures and across different time periods. Malory highlights Lancelot's failings to enable the reader to identify with Lancelot in seeing their own failings as they too strive for perfection. However, on the other hand, it is hard for a modern reader to identify with a 15th century knight who is obsessed with a Queen. Also, Lancelot is an ideal hero, as the perfect knight and lover. He is too close to perfection so that the reader is unable to identify with him. Therefore Lancelot is only an identifiable character because of his human failing of being unable to be perfect and is unidentifiable in all other areas of his character. The reader identifies with what Lancelot symbolizes and at the same time does not identify with his character.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, I can identify with Lancelot's struggle between doing what he knows to be right and what he himself really wants. He knows that his love for Guinevere is wrong, as he himself acknowledges when he refuses to sit in Siege Perilous, yet he lacks the will to end it. Unlike Galahad, who seems very much to be a Christ-figure, Mallory's Lancelot epitomises the human condition.
ReplyDeleteI think what makes Lancelot so interesting and more relatable than Arthur is that he is flawed. The most intriguing characters are not those who are entirely good or entirely bad; that’s too boring. Characters who can fall into both categories are what make them still worth talking about centuries later.
ReplyDeleteI, like many others, identify with Lancelot through his struggle to be a good person, and the mistakes he makes in his attempt.
Malory’s Lancelot is the ultimate hero in the story because he depicts a real man, suffering but still trying to do what’s right, not an idealized version who can do no wrong.
I can identify with Mallory's Lancelot as many others have said he is a character with flaws. His struggle to do what's right - be loyal to his king - and what he knows to be wrong - his affair with Guenivere. His flaws is what makes him an interesting character, in some ways more than Arthur who is always seen as the perfect king.
ReplyDeleteI also can identify with Lancelot as a character, as his imperfections make him real and relatable. One finds it harder to relate to a character such as Galahad, who is portrayed as almost saintly in character. Although Lancelot is, in many ways, lager than life, it is still he who we are attracted to. The inner turmoil that Lancelot endures whilst trying to maintain an intact exterior is something I can relate to, as I'm sure others can also.
ReplyDelete