In the Arthurian legends written from the perspectives of Chretien de Troye, author of Lancelot, and Marie de France, author of Lanval, their demonstrations of knighthood both mirror and contradict our understandings of Chivalry based on Ramon Llull’s The Book of the Order of Chivalry. In turn, these authors present us with their own ideas of knighthood and chivalry and they create expectations for knights based on different criteria. Their ideas prompt us to both question and redefine our own considerations of what Knighthood and Chivalry mean. They present new ideas of knighthood, while also being related to ideas written by Llull.
On page 41 of The Book of the Order of Chivalry, Llull claims that knights “must be loved and feared by the people” in order for justice to be “restored.” Marie de France writes Lanval as a character who is not taken seriously by his fellow knights at the beginning of the story. He begins to gain credibility among the other knights when he comes into contact with his fairy lover who gives him many riches and gifts. In his story, he is eventually loved, or appreciated but, I would argue, he is never actually feared. However, in Lancelot, he is described as a character that is both loved and feared. He gains his status as a knight who should be feared throughout the story, particularly in his interactions with Meleagant. In part one, his adversary, Meleagant, states directly that he does not fear Lancelot despite the fact that he is eventually killed by Lancelot. Rather, Meleagant feels anger towards Lancelot: “Meleagant’s face reddened with anger and wrath; he knew well that he would be challenged now for the queen. But he was such a knight that he feared no man, no matter how strong or mighty” (Chretien 143). It is clear that Meleagant’s opinion of Lancelot changes when he says “Love and mortal Hatred, the greatest ever conceived, made him so bold and courageous that Meleagant realized that this was deadly serious and began to fear him exceedingly,” (Chretien 148). This is representative of Llull’s claim that a knight can, and should, be both loved and feared by his people.
On page 41 Llull also states “And the nobler your lineage, the more obliged you are to be good and agreeable to God and the people, and if you are treacherous are the greatest enemy of Chivalry and the most contrary to its lineage and its honour” (Llull 41) Here, Llull contests that those coming from a noble lineage are more in line with his teachings of chivalry. Moreover, he implies that there is a lineage within chivalry itself. This idea is referenced at the beginning of Lanval when we learn about his heritage: “He was a king’s son, of high lineage,/ but he was far from his heritage” (Marie 219). Although Lanval is “of high lineage” he is far removed from having a well known and respected. I would argue that this is partly why he is forgotten by King Arthur when he distributes gifts and is not widely revered by his fellow knights. This evidence from Lanval furthers Llull’s claim that lineage does play a role in one’s perceived chivalric tendencies.
Conversely, in Lancelot, we are not given specific information about where and which family he comes from. At the beginning of the story he is referred to as “the knight” and we do not even know his name. As he starts his journey to rescue the queen, he is given the title “the knight of the cart” after he rides in a cart meant for criminals and murderers in hopes of gaining more information of the queen’s whereabouts. It is not until halfway through the story that we find out his real name is “Lancelot.” I would argue that in this story Lancelot earns his name, title, and reputation through his actions rather than through a predetermined identity based on his lineage. He gains credibility as a knight by bravely facing several trials throughout the story. Before he is recognized for these actions throughout the text, he is considered nameless. This is apparent even when he is referred to as “The Knight of the Cart,” he is given this title because he chooses to ride in the cart, and also because he initially hesitates to get into the cart. Throughout the text, there is a recurring theme of Lancelot’s identity being defined and critiqued by his actions. I would argue that this is in part because of the ideas regarding the importance of chivalry emphasized throughout the narrative that are both similar to Llull and uniquely their own.
In Llull’s book, he presents various ideas that are clear and concrete, however, a few of his suggestions elicit ambiguity. For example, on page 52 he states: “If the treacherous man who kills his lord, lies with his wife or surrenders his castle is a knight, what kind of man is he who gives his life to honour and defend his lord?” This idea is presented as a question that is not answered directly. Although the statement itself suggests that Llull is not in support of this behavior, the question format of the idea leaves room for further interpretation on the matter. Is it noble or chivalric for a knight to “kill his lord” or “lie with his wife?” Llull questions what kind of a man would do such a thing, but he does not, in turn, answer this question. I would argue that this concept applies directly to Lancelot and his relationship with Guinevere. Although he is revered by his Lord, King Arthur, he still involves himself in a relationship with Guinevere. Additionally, he is never punished or shunned for his actions. The story’s emphasis on “Love” over “Reason” allows for such a thing to happen without any direct consequences for Lancelot. Yet, it is also important to remember that it is never clear whether or not anyone is at all aware of Lancelot and Guinevere’s relationship.
This idea from Llull is also relevant in Lanval when he is accused by Guinevere of trying to initiate a sexual relationship with her, even though the opposite is true. He is taken to court and tried for his supposed mistake, when in reality he is innocent of the crime and is being wrongly accused by Guinevere. In this story, this action has dire, serious consequences that are directly related to the suggested romantic relationship between Guinevere and Lancelot. Additionally, Lanval explicitly states his concern for his loyalty to the king, his lord, when Guinevere approaches him: “‘Lady,’ he says, ‘let me be!/ I have no interest in loving you./ For a long time I have served the king;/ I don’t want to betray my faith to him./ Never for you or for your love.” He is concerned with demonstrably maintaining his loyalty to the King in ways that Lancelot is not, considering that Lancelot actually does have a romantic relationship with Guinevere that he is never punished for. However, Lancelot is a considerably more noble knight in the context of both stories. This suggests that the ambiguity created by Llull is also embedded in the moral conflicts within the stories of both Lancelot and Lanval. Chretien and Marie explore various ideas of knighthood and conceptualizations of chivalry through the characters Lancelot and Lanval. Their ideas both reflect and challenge those laid out by Llull in the Book on the Order of Chivalry. The different iterations of King Arthur’s knights presented in both stories demonstrate the subjectivity of the concept of knighthood. Despite the fact that the broader idea of knighthood follows a specific set of morals and identity, there are ways in which authors have created their own notions of what it means to be a knight. This could also be considered a reflection of our contemporary understanding of knighthood and how that can vary widely among different books, movies, and television series. We have our own ideas of what knighthood is, or what knighthood should be that have been construed in many different ways.