Proceedings of The National Conference
On Undergraduate Research (NCUR) 2012
Weber State University, Ogden Utah
March 29 – 31, 2012
Interpreting the Character of Lancelot in Chrétien de Troyes’ Le Chevalier de
la Charette
Esther Bernstein
English Department
The City College of New York
160 Convent Avenue
New York, NY 10031
Faculty Advisor: Professor Elizabeth Mazzola
Abstract
With Le Chevalier de la Charrete circa 1170, Chrétien de Troyes was the first to write a romance in which Lancelot
is the central figure. Since then, Lancelot has come to symbolize chivalric perfection. But Chrétien’s original
romance is unclear about Lancelot’s character, and many scholars speak about Chrétien’s Lancelot in contradictory
absolutes which point to the ambiguity inherent in the character. Is Lancelot truly a romantic hero, or is he actually a
villain? Who ultimately determines what a character in literature represents? Exploring the factors that contribute to
Lancelot’s ambiguity leads to answers to these questions. The surface meaning of the text portrays Lancelot as a
perfect knight, both adventurous and chivalrous to the highest degree. But other instances that reveal Chrétien’s
opinion on Lancelot, such as narrative asides and his tone in some passages, suggest an imperfect picture of a knight
constantly engaged in wrong or foolish behavior in his love for Guenevere. The views of Chrétien’s audience on
adultery and treason seem to agree with this view of Lancelot as a felon, betraying love and his lord by engaging in
an adulterous affair with the queen. But Le Chevalier de la Charrete is not unique in portraying chivalry and love of
this kind, and there is evidence that Marie de Champagne’s court, the intended audience for this romance, engaged
in discussions of theories of love whose conclusions were in direct opposition to the reality of the time. This points
to a difference between reality and the literary ideal of love, so that characters in literature do not need to conform to
the norms of society. Ultimately, Lancelot became a symbol of perfect chivalry because his readers interpreted him
as such on the basis of a literary ideal, irrespective of reality or Chrétien’s own point of view.
Keywords: Lancelot, Chrétien de Troyes, Arthurian Romance
1. Body of Paper
With Le Chevalier de la Charrete circa 1170, Chrétien de Troyes was the first to write a romance in which Lancelot
is the central figure. Since then, Lancelot has come to symbolize chivalric perfection. But Chrétien’s original
romance is unclear about Lancelot’s character, and many scholars speak about Chrétien’s Lancelot in contradictory
absolutes which point to the ambiguity inherent in the character. Is Lancelot truly a romantic hero, or is he actually a
villain? Many factors play a part in determining how we should read Lancelot, from the text itself to the author’s
tone and the romance’s original audience.
A quick read of the text leaves readers with the impression that Lancelot is truly a perfect knight. He is certainly
adventurous and daring: He gains the right to sleep in the forbidden bed through fearlessness and quick action (ll.
470-534). He takes on multiple knights at once in defending the maiden pretending to be raped and continues
fighting after sustaining crippling injuries (ll. 1126-1180). He lifts a slab of stone “More easily than ten men could
have done” (ll. 1910-1914). He fights his way through a guarded pass using shrewdness as much as physical fighting
and impresses his opponents (ll. 2222-2243). These are just a few examples of his daring, and as the romance goes
on, the list of Lancelot’s successful exploits grows, culminating in the fierce battle with Meleagant where Lancelot
proves his strength and cunning (ll.7002-7090).
Lancelot is therefore undoubtedly “the epitome of perfection” in “knightly excellence,” but the question of his
behavior as a lover is of more importance to the investigation of the essence of his character, as “it is Lancelot as a
lover that is the ultimate center of the romance” (Staines xix). And he proves again and again that he is indeed
chivalrous to his lady-love the queen as well as to other women. He battles with himself between keeping his
promise of sleeping with his hostess and remaining faithful to his love for the queen (ll. 1195-1265). He promises to
defend the girl as they ride together (ll. 1322-1324). He even allows himself to be defeated time and again when he
could easily have overcome his opponents, simply because Guinevere tells him to “do your worst” and he is utterly
loyal to his love (ll. 5635-5662).
But going beyond the surface reading, ambiguities abound. Almost every critic of this romance points to
Chrétien’s opening statements as proof that the author did not see Lancelot as the perfect exemplar of chivalric
knights. Chrétien writes “I will say, however, that her [Marie of Champagne] command / Has more importance in
this work / Than any thought or effort I might put into it. / … / The source and the meaning are furnished and given
him / By the countess, and he strives / Carefully to add nothing / But his effort and diligence” (ll. 21-29). The
scholarly consensus is that with these words Chrétien is alluding to his reluctance to write this story, to his view of
Lancelot not as a hero to be admired but as a felon, betraying his lord. This counters the apparent chivalric
excellence and brings Lancelot’s status as a romantic hero into question.
Chrétien’s treatment of the topic of love can leave readers wondering as well. From the beginning of the narrative,
the author moves into asides about the nature of love many times, commenting on what is happening to Lancelot and
examining what love is and what love does. The first time this happens is when Lancelot hesitates before getting
into the cart. Chrétien writes there that “Reason, which does not follow Love’s command, / Told him not to get in,”
but ultimately “Love wished it and he jumped in - / The shame mattered not to him / Since Love ruled his action” (ll.
365 – 377). Though in this case Chrétien has love win over reason, it is unclear what exactly he thought about this.
The result of this victory is that Lancelot rides in a cart, a shameful experience since carts at that time were used
only to transport criminals, and he is mocked and ridiculed for this throughout the rest of the narrative. At the same
time, though, the queen punishes Lancelot later for his hesitation, guided by reason over love, so that while he is
mocked for allowing love to ultimately win, he is also punished for allowing reason to even engage in a battle with
love. This raises the question as to whether the victory is justified, in Chrétien’s mind, or Lancelot is acting foolishly
in allowing love to win over reason.
Twice in the beginning sections of the story, Chrétien describes Lancelot’s preoccupation with his love for the
queen, and both these incidents again are ambiguous as to whether Lancelot is being praised or ridiculed for his
thoughts. The first time Lancelot and Gawain catch sight of the queen, Lancelot sees her from a window and “When
he was no longer able to see her / He would gladly have cast himself / Down to shatter his body below” (ll. 565-7).
He is only stopped by Gawain who drags him back from the window. This could be interpreted as a sign of
Lancelot’s complete and utter devotion to the queen, so that Lancelot is a perfect lover, ready to die for his love. But
this can also be read as a foolish move on Lancelot’s part, where he is no longer capable of reason, which Gawain
and the girl remind him of by suggesting they leave the tower where they can do nothing and instead pursue the
queen’s party.
Later, when Lancelot sets out for the Sword Bridge, he is again overtaken by thoughts of love for the queen, to the
point that his horse leaves the path and he does not notice until confronted with a knight who challenges him.
Chrétien describes his state of mind as “A man with no strength or defense / Against Love, who torments him; / His
meditation was so deep / That he forgot his own identity…” (ll. 712-15), suggesting not a man in control of his love,
but love controlling the man. This choice of words, “torments” and “no strength or defense against Love,” and the
long description which details just how out of touch with the world Lancelot is as he contemplates his love for the
queen, challenge the force of love as a purely positive force. Lancelot is subjugated to the power of love, to the
point that he is no longer rational and is in some ways weakened by it. By portraying love as a catalyst for Lancelot
entering into these situations, Chrétien seems to be saying that it is a potentially negative and dangerous force, not
an ideal to strive for.
John Benton claims that the reason modern readers need to closely study and explain the nature of Lancelot’s love
is that the modern perception of love is of a purely positive conquering force, but “[i]f we find Lancelot a
sympathetic figure because he was guided by love rather than reason, it is because modern attitudes differ from
medieval ones in ways Chrétien could not foresee” (28). According to Benton, the reading of these situations as
negative outcomes resulting from love’s conquest of reason is the correct one. But taken on their own and studied
for the results within the work itself, neither of these situations is unambiguously negative when love triumphs.
151
Besides, further incidents studied on their own suggest a more clearly positive view on being guided by love.
When the girl tells Lancelot and Gawain where the queen has been taken and how to get to her, she demands that
each knight promise to do whatever she bids them to. Lancelot “swore / (Like one whom Love has made powerful /
And strong and bold for any endeavor)” (ll. 629-31). His love for the queen enables him to be stronger and bolder
than he might have been otherwise. Contrary to the times when love weakens his prowess and distracts him from his
mission, here love actually strengthens him.
Another instance where love is portrayed positively is at the home of the girl who demanded that Lancelot sleep
with her in exchange for her hospitality. Trying to both keep his promise to his hostess and remain loyal to his love,
Lancelot gets into bed and turns away from the girl. “His heart was kept fixed on a single object / By Love, which
rules all hearts. / All hearts? Not really, only those it esteems. / And whomever Love deigns to rule / Should esteem
himself the more” (ll. 1232-6). Here again, Chrétien makes an aside about the nature of love, and in this case, the
tone is again obviously positive. Being ruled by love is a reason for Lancelot to think more highly of himself, and
Chrétien does not “find fault with him / …for setting his purpose by Love’s commands” (ll. 1240-2). In this incident
it appears that bowing to love’s demands is inarguably a positive thing.
Even if love is a positive force, however, Lancelot’s chivalric propriety comes into question, since in acting with
complete devotion to his lady-love, Lancelot is inevitably committing a misdeed, as his love, Guinevere, is a married
woman. The attitude of the medieval audience toward adultery suggests that they would not have been sympathetic
to a character whose main goal is to engage in an adulterous affair with a married woman. “The fate of adulterous
queens and courtier-lovers in the Middle Ages and Renaissance is well documented. Adultery was treason and was
punished as such” (Jackson xxiii). Benton provides many examples of adultery being punished severely, beginning
with Roman laws to sew the violators of marriage in sack and burn them alive. Events more contemporary to
Chrétien’s work echo this law, such as the chroniclers’ report that “in about 1000 Count Fulk Nerra of Anjou burned
his adulterous wife Elizabeth” (Benton 26). A translation and commentary of the 44th psalm, ironically dedicated to
Marie de Champagne who commissioned Lancelot, “states as the custom of the world that when a woman deserts
the love of her husband for another…she would in fact be better off in the grave” (Benton 26).
The words used when talking about the clandestine meeting between Lancelot and Guinevere are telling as to what
Chrétien may have thought about this issue. In describing Lancelot’s thoughts about going to Guinevere, Chrétien
writes, “Because for nothing would he rest there – / Nor could he, nor did he dare, / Nor did he wish to have / Such
daring or such courage” (ll. 4555-8). Lancelot makes the decision to keep his appointment with Guinevere, but his
thoughts about staying away are in terms of “daring” and “courage.” The language of courage used to describe
staying away leads the reader to see the alternative as directly opposed to courage. The tryst itself, then, would be
the opposite of daring and courage, so that rather than being a positive meeting of lovers, it is characterized by
cowardice.
Later, when Kay is accused of having slept with Guinevere, the language again points to an attitude of aversion to
a lovers’ tryst rather than glorifying the love. Kay says “Indeed, I would much rather be dead / Than have committed
such a base / And blameworthy act toward my lord” (ll. 4863-5), and it can be assumed that this attitude is what
prevails in the rest of the characters and in the author as well, since Kay is one of the most honorable knights in
King Arthur’s court. Lancelot himself assumes this attitude in public, and ironically, it is he who defends Kay’s
honor against the accusation that he slept with Guinevere. The way he takes Kay’s defense, by saying “May it never
please God to let anyone doubt / Either you or him in such a matter” (ll. 4932-3), makes it clear that he sees such an
act as a despicable deed and a huge slight to anyone’s honor to be accused of. The fact that he takes this stance
publicly proves that whatever he might think in private about wanting to meet with Guinevere, the prevailing
attitude is one of disgust with such a meeting. In that case, the author seems to want the reader not to see Lancelot as
merely a hero and a devoted lover but as a character with a tinge of something dishonorable.
As to why Lancelot is not then explicitly condemned in the narrative, Benton writes that Chrétien “wrote
courteously of Lancelot…not because he found his behavior admirable but because he was writing in the medieval
tradition of irony” (Benton 28), which a thirteenth-century teacher of grammar and rhetoric defined as “the
unadorned and gentle use of words to convey disdain and ridicule…for it is nothing but vituperation to commend the
evil deeds of someone through their opposite” (Benton 28-29). The truth of what Chrétien thought of Lancelot lies in
the subtlety of his language and the ironic situations he puts Lancelot in. Having Lancelot defend Kay from the act
he himself committed is no longer simply an amusing twist of events, but according to Benton, it is an invitation to
the reader to see the hypocrisy in Lancelot and thus highlight his shortcomings.
Another point to take into consideration in regard to the illicit nature of Lancelot’s love is the fact that the woman
he loves is not only married, but is married to Arthur, the king. Engaging in an affair with his lord’s wife goes
beyond mere adultery and crosses into the territory of treason, of betraying his lord to whom he owes full service.
Benton points out the difference between a man having affairs with other women and a man betraying his lord’s
152
trust by sleeping with his lord’s wife. Kay’s defense of himself supports this, as he says “I would much rather be
dead / Than have committed such a base / And blameworthy act toward my lord” (ll. 4863-5), ending with horror
not at committing adultery but specifically at committing adultery with his lord’s wife. This is the kind of behavior
that the medieval “courtly audience would condemn” (Benton 28).
This analysis of medieval attitudes toward adultery, however, may not be applicable in the question of determining
what kind of character Chrétien’s Lancelot is and would have been to his medieval audience. Moral standards in
reality and within literature do not necessarily align and may differ in massive ways. Gaston Paris’ term “amour
courtois,” courtly love, was coined “to describe the adulterous relationship of Lancelot and Guinevere in this
romance” (Staines xix). In a society where adulterous love was punishable by extreme measures, and where adultery
with the queen was treasonous and therefore so much worse, the love between Lancelot and Guinevere, the queen,
developed “as an artistic convention in and around the courts of southern France in the late eleventh and early
twelfth centuries” (Staines xx). Literature of this time did not portray the reality of the existence of love but the “late
medieval aristocracy as it fain would be” (Comfort vii). Chrétien was writing amid an “ever-spreading craze for
courtly love amongst high-born dames” and “prevailing sentiment demanded courtly love between a knight and a
married woman” (Taylor 87). Comfort describes the actualities of medieval love, and explains that women craved
romance depicting “courtly love” as controlled by love rather than anything else because “therein lay its charm for a
society in which the actual relations of the sexes were rigidly prescribed by the Church and by feudal practice, rather
than by the sentiments of the individuals concerned” (Comfort xi).
This system of love where adultery was not condemned but celebrated may have its roots in a practice explained
by Andreas Capellanus in his book Tractacus de Amore et de Amoris Remedio. Andreas relates how Eleanor of
Aquitaine, along with her daughter Marie of Champagne, presided over “courts of love” in Poitiers, France,
recording twenty-one cases presented by lovers, asking the court for a judgment as to the proper course of action
(Kelly 4). The real existence of these courts is called into question by many scholars, but the mere mention of them
in a work possibly commissioned by Marie suggests that it could be plausible that they did exist, and what matters is
that this literary ideal of adulterous love was fully embraced by the readers of the time.
One passage cites an exchange of letters, the first asking about love between spouses as opposed to love between
lovers, and Marie’s response that love cannot exist between husband and wife, “For lovers give each other
everything freely, under no compulsion of necessity, but married people are in duty bound to give in to each other's
desires and deny themselves to each other in nothing” (Capellanus). The kind of love championed by this court of
women was not love in marriage – in fact, they claim that love between husband and wife is simply impossible.
Instead, they put forth illicit love as the only possible true love. Thus Lancelot was received by this court as the
perfect lover, because he is indeed engaged in an illicit relationship with Guinevere.
In this model of love, the discussion of whether Lancelot being ruled by love rather than reason is viewed by
Chrétien as good or foolish is easily resolved: In this type of situation, “such love is irrational, indeed usually in
direct opposition to reason’s urgings,” and for Lancelot in particular, “Guided by love and not by reason…Lancelot
is an ideal courtly lover, viewed by the narrator with affectionate irony” (Staines xx). In writing a character based on
the ideal crafted by women which could never hold true in reality, Chrétien may indeed have felt a sort of
affectionate irony to both the character and his mistress Marie. Based on this, Lancelot fits the role of romantic hero
perfectly and would have been received by his original audience as such irrespective of actual social norms of the
time.
What, then, ultimately determines whether Lancelot is a hero or a villain, treasonous or chivalrous? Lancelot’s
reputation as the most perfect knight through the ages, beginning with Marie of Champagne’s court, speaks for
itself. Whatever the author may have intended for Lancelot, the original audience’s reception of the character places
him firmly in the heroic, chivalric sphere. Analysis of Le Chevalier de la Charrete provides us, as modern readers,
with the multiple layers that went into the creation of this character, and it is certainly fascinating to consider all of
them. But ultimately, Lancelot became a symbol of perfect chivalry because his readers interpreted him as such on
the basis of a literary ideal, irrespective of reality or Chrétien’s own point of view.
Interestingly, Lancelot was not always received as a perfect romantic hero. In Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur,
Lancelot is portrayed as the reason for the fall of Arthur’s kingdom (replacing Arthur’s nephew Mordred as the
lover of the queen and the cause of the kingdom’s downfall in some earlier texts), and in that work cannot be
interpreted as the epitome of knightly excellence or chivalry. Malory’s audience would have seen any redeeming
traits that Lancelot has as shadowed by his treason in having an affair with his lord’s wife. The difference between
Chrétien’s audience, Malory’s audience, and the modern audience lies in cultural and regional differences.
Chrétien’s audience in France lived with the “prevailing sentiment” glorifying the love between Lancelot and
Guinevere, but Malory’s audience in England would have had a very different idea of love, and as Benton explains,
modern attitudes to love differ vastly from medieval reality. The result is that as each audience, marked by
153
differences in geography and time, reads a work, the character is interpreted according to these differences.
Chrétien’s original audience, influenced by the medieval reality and the ideal that grew in southern France,
interpreted Lancelot as the ultimate chivalric hero.
2. Works Cited
de Troyes, Chrétien. Lancelot or, The Knight of the Cart (Le Chevalier de la Charrete). ed. W.W. Kibler. New York
and London: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1981.
Benton, John F. “Clio and Venus: An Historical View of Medieval Love.” The Meaning of Courtly Love. ed, F.X.
Newman. New York: SUNY, 1968.
Bruckner, Matilda Tomaryn. “Le Chevalier de la Charrette.” A Companion to Chrétien de Troyes. ed. Norris J. Lacy
and Joan Tasker Grimbert. Rochester: D.S. Brewer, 2005.
Comfort, W.W. Arthurian Romances. London: Dent, 1914 (repr. 1967).
Frappier, Jean. Chrétien de Troyes: The Man and His Work. trans. Raymond J. Cormier. Athens: Ohio University
Press, 1982.
Jackson, W.T.H. Lancelot: The Knight of the Cart, Chrétien de Troyes. New York: Columbia University Press,
1984.
Kelly, Amy. “Eleanor of Aquitaine and her Courts of Love.” Speculum 12:1 (1937): 3-19. JStor. Accessed 2.28.12.
Staines, David. The Complete Romances of Chrétien de Troyes. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990.
154