To recap something Dr. Wenthe pointed out during last night's class: Malory's Morte Darthur features two instances of a word (chevalier, or a variation..?), once referring to Lancelot and once referring to Malory himself, suggesting a line of identification. (Or of hope?)
But how do we reconcile that with this passage on pg. 163:
"What?" seyde Sir Launcelot, "is he a theff and a knyght and a ravyssher of women? He doth shame unto the order of knyghthode, and contrary unto his oth. It is pyte that he lyvyth..."
How do we understand that in reference to Malory's own history as a transgressive knight? Multiple choice:
(A) Self-repudiation
(B) Some other kind of self-reference (With the idea that Malory wrote at least part of the Morte Darthur while in prison, a way of saying, "Look, I put this in my book, I totes believe a knight would NEVER do that stuff I'm accused of doing.")
(C) Irony (In light of the motif of violations of knightly code by other knights in the Morte Darthur and also Sir Pedyvere's exploitation of Lancelot's adherence to knightly codes and his naivete, which are related; also on the same pg. 163, Sir Kay, our guy whose job it is to complain and abuse people, identifies himself as a "trew knyght," which is surely ironic?)
(D) Nostalgia (Lancelot as a symbol of way back when knighthood was for reals and everybody really did what they were supposed to-- related to the in media res nature of Lancelot's narrative)
(E) None of the above
--
As a further complication, there is also this passage on pg. 162, which I think is an interesting counter (?) to our discussion last night about how attacking a weary knight is verboten or at least uncool.
Than they hurteled togedyrs as two wylde bullys, russhynge and laysshyng with her shyldis and swerdys, that sometyme they felle bothe on their nosys. Thus they foughte stylle two owres and more and never wolde have reste, and Sir Tarquyne gaff Sir Launcelot many woundys, that all the grounde there as they faughte was all besparcled with bloode.
Than at the laste Sir Terquyne wexed faynte and gaff somwhatt abakke, and bare his shylde low for werynesse.
That aspyed Sir Launcelot, and lepte uppon hym fersly and gate hym by the bavoure of hys helmette and plucked hym down on his kneis; and anone he raced of his helme and smote his necke in sundir.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Erin,
ReplyDeleteI must say that just because somebody wexes faynte, does not necessarily mean that they've thrown in the towel out of weariness. I think Lancelot operated within the code when he gaff Terquyne what he gaff him. If the knights rested at every instance of wexing faynte, then the russhynge and laysshyng might never end.
I don't know exactly what to make of Malory's comment, however, I'm not inclined to agree with multiple choice option "A." I think by aligning himself with Launcelot and the elevated title of "chevalier," Malory is too impressed with himself to make any real gesture toward self criticism. Or perhaps he's utilizing his own real-life skeez to cast askeez upon Sir Launcelot. But, as Launcelot has yet to be denounced by Malory (remember, we still have no direct affirmation of his affair with Guinevere), my jury is still out--probably at Chef Geoff's since it's Tuesday happy hour. So, I guess we'll have a better idea as we move further on. For now, I'll stake my bets with option "C"--irony.
Respectfully submitted,
Len e.
I agree that Launcelot isn't exactly outside of the knightly code when he charges at Sir Terquyne, although it does seem harsh and there are moments when other quality knights refuse to do battle with the weary.
ReplyDeleteThe above example aside, I think Erin is right to call Launcelot's character into question. In "The Noble Tale of Sir Launcelot du Lake, the titular hero undergoes a series of armor changes. At first fighting with white, "generic" armor and shields so that others cannot identify him. The scene is a bit confusing to me, but it seems harmless enough as he's fighting tyrants like Mordred and his crew (although I'm not certain Mordred is officially a "bad guy" at this point in the plot). Perhaps this unlabeled armor is a way of concealing his celebrity, or perhaps it's a symbol of modesty, or maybe even plain trickery. In "Knights in Disguise," Susan Crane argues that incognito is a means of gaining renown. She writes, "Incognito does conceal information, but does so only temporarily in order to focus attention on the judgment of present actions without regard for lineage, past achievements, and failures" (Crane 67). However, I'm not sure this holds up in Launcelot's case considering once he defeats "the knyghtes of the kynge of North Galys party" (Malory 154) he simply returns to Kynge Bademagus's castle for some r-n-r, never revealing himself to his opponents.
Later, Launcelot steals away in Kay's armor, but we see this as a sweet gesture. Kay, who is worn-out, is able to travel home safely in Launcelot's attire, while Launcelot, disguised as Kay, fends off Kay's attackers.
But after reading the last few pages of "Sir Trystrams de Lyones: The Round Table," I'm beginning to wonder if Launcelot has a fetish for disguise (he dresses up as a maiden a couple of chapters later). I might not question this behavior so much if it wasn't for the fact that he BREAKS THE KNIGHTLY CODE by fighting against fellow knights of the Round Table. I mean, he's KILLING PEOPLE, right? Arthur knows this too and acknowledges it without reprimand, stating only, "Hit is not the fyrste tyme...he hath done so" (344)! That sounds like something an angry parent might say, but there are no obvious consequences for Launcelot. And it's hard to read tone -- perhaps King Arthur is in on the prank and has Launcelot out in the field policing the knights? Or could these be more war games (just a little more realistic than tournements)? Launcelot never behaves in this way without concealing his identity and the cover-up makes it seem that much darker.
----------------------------------------------
Crane, Susan. "Knights in Disguise: Identity and Incognito in Fourteenth-Century Chivalry." _The Stranger in Medieval Society_. Ed. F.R.P. Akehurs and Stephanie Cain Van D'Elden. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
Erin, I guess because of what Tarquyne did to Sir Gaherys and other knights of the Round Table. He couldnt allow him to live. We see that with the Brown Knight without Pity. He is like King Mark, an untrustworthy, low fellow.
ReplyDeleteErin, I would go with B :-)
ReplyDeleteAlso Lennie, you are right, it is a little diffedrent here. One is to come freash to the field of battle and take on a weary knight and the other is that one tires during a fight, that too what appears to be a mortal combat. Tarquyn would never have spared Launcelot.
ReplyDeleteMeghan, in regards to what you have said, doesn't Trystram do the same? He comes back in red armour? Only Palomydes and Isode know who he is.
ReplyDeleteI go with C - I think he's intimating that adherence to the code makes even the greatest knight (Lancelot) foolish or naive. Maybe it's a comment on feeling restricted/held back by these codes of behavior himself?
ReplyDeleteYes, Nasreen, Trystram engages in incognito, too, as do many other knights for various reasons, but Launcelot's behavior at the end of "The Round Table" alarmed me because it seemed that he disguised himself in order to commit questionable acts. In this case (because I failed to answer Erin's question in my previous comment) I'll go with "C" (and maybe a pinch of "A" since I think Sir Malory does have a sense of right and wrong) because I believe Malory identifies with Launcelot and also questions the order of knighthood. I'm still working out some of these ideas, but I tried to expand in my recent blog entry.
ReplyDeleteI vote for C, irony. I think Malory had a sense of right and wrong only in that he knew and set out what people expect of knights — what "right" and proper conduct is expected of them, versus the reality for so many of them, including Malory himself. Perhaps in the confusing moments throughout Le Mort D'Arthur, when knights don't do the right thing, Malory is working through the many contradictions we find in fictional and actual medieval knighthood and suggesting that a truly perfect, proper knight is a pure fiction. Queering the concept of knighthood, you could say, by showing where the ends don't quite meet. And the dressing in disguise or in other knights' clothes/armor fits in this queering ... I love the concept of fetish! :)
ReplyDelete