The Breton Lai is a short, episodic poem that was typically intended to be accompanied by music. Lais are generally considered by critics to be a sub-genre of the romance, their content dealing most often with the romanticized ideals of courtly love, the supernatural or the world of the fae, and knighthood or chivalry. Marie de France’s “Lanval” was written during the twelfth century and Thomas Chestre’s “Sir Launfal” was written in the fourteenth century. Both are considered Breton Lai’s because of their length and content. According to William Stokoe in his article “The Sources of Sir Launfal,” the origins of Chestre’s story are both Marie’s lai and another anonymous lai titled “Graelent” (392). However, despite Marie being the source for Chestre’s piece, the two works have different focuses in terms of chivalry. Marie focuses most on love and loyalty whereas Chestre focuses on bravery in battle, prowess, and generosity, though both the themes mostly through the characters of Lanval and Sir Launfal. My argument is that even though these stories are essentially the same in plot, what shaped the chivalric emphasis was their respective historical and social constructs.
Both lais are set in the mythical court of King Arthur. During the twelfth century, around the time Marie was writing, there was a shift in the way that King Arthur was handled in literature. As stated in King Arthur: A Casebook, Arthur “was shifted to the background and changed from a leading actor at the center of events to a supporting player, almost a decoration, while others moved forward to claim our attention” (29). Marie and Chestre both use Arthur as a way of setting and also to subtly let the reader know the high expectations set upon the knight. Originally, Arthur’s court was considered in literature to be the epitome of chivalry. This switch in focus the twelfth century, however, allowed writers to explore the depth of the knights of Arthur’s court and to show their basic human flaws. Lanval and Launfal are both examples of this, letting their pride get the best of them when insulted by the Queen. Marie was writing her lai during the time of the Crusades. Chestre was writing during the devastating Black Death outbreak and the Hundred Years War. Both authors could be using the mythical world of King Arthur as an escape for the real life issues going on around them.
The connotations of Arthur’s court are what form the idea of chivalry in both Marie and Chestre’s pieces. The “age of chivalry” is typically considered to be from the end of the eleventh century to the beginning of the sixteenth century (Tuleja, “Belief Systems”). Originally, chivalry referred to any knight who fought on horseback (in reference to the French word chevalerie). Through literature and culture, chivalry transformed into the idealized concept that we have today. The principle virtues of the code of chivalry that one must follow to be considered a gentil or noble knight were “piety, honour, valour, courtesy, chastity, and loyalty” (“Chivalry”). More specifically a man must defend his king and his church with undaunted loyalty and bravery, show generosity and piety towards the weak and the poor, and to have a respectable and protective stance toward women, especially be willing to inconvenience himself for a lady’s benefit (Tuleja, “Belief Systems”).
Shannon Rogers asserts that “the image of the knight jousting at a tournament is one of the most enduring and pervasive symbols of the Middle Ages” (“Tournaments”). It is interesting then that two of the major changes in Chestre’s version of “Lanval” are two jousting scenes that are not in Marie’s version. The first jousting scene occurs after Launfal returns to town with the never emptying purse from Lady Tryamour. He immediately gains the people’s favor by repaying “All that Launfal had borrowed before” (418) and giving money to those who need it. To celebrate his return to high status, the other knights “let cry a tournament” (434). Though it was not uncommon for tournaments to occur for means of celebrations, this tournament however serves no real plot development other than to show off Launfal’s prowess in battle. The second jousting scene is between Launfal and Sir Valentyne. When the giant Sir Valentyne calls upon Launfal to prove his love for his “lemman” (523), Launfal does not hesitate for a moment and slays both Sir Valentyne and all of his men who wanted revenge. The supernatural element of Valentyne being a giant and the entire tournament aspect incorporates more classic elements of the Breton lai and helps to give the story are more adventurous feel.
Where Marie’s version incorporates no battles or sense of daring adventure, she does incorporate one of the main points of medieval chivalry” loyalty to one’s king. Though romantic, courtly love overshadows most of chivalric literature, a knight’s loyalty to his king and his fellow knights would have come before anything else. In “Lanval,” Lanval is disrespected by King Arthur himself, rather than Guinevere like in Chestre’s version. In “Sir Launfal,” after Guinevere declines his acknowledgment, Launfal separates himself from the court, claiming he was “departed from the King” (101). It almost seems he does this prematurely because before the incident with Guinevere at the feast, King Arthur is glad when his knights return and say, falsely, that Launfal is doing well: “Glad was Artoure the King / That Launfal was in good liking” (175-76). Even though the Queen had both power and influence, it makes it much more of an insult that Arthur himself denied Lanval any claim at the beginning of Marie’s version. Launfal seems to leave the court because of shamed pride, while Lanval leaves out of loyalty to respect his King’s feelings towards him.
In both versions, Lanval / Launfal leaves the town after the hurtful gesture but when he comes back from the fairy maiden, the Queen / Guinevere propositions him and claims her fond feelings towards him. However, there are two different reactions. In Chestre’s version, Launfal says “I will not be a traitor, day nor night / By God, that all may guide!” (683-4). Though he does say “traitor,” it is not implied that he specifically means Arthur. He could very well be referencing his own cod of honor when it comes to betraying the Lady Tryamour’s commandment. In Marie’s version, Lanval has a stronger, more specific denial of the queen:
‘Lady,’ answered the knight, ‘grant me leave to go, for this grace is not for
me. I am the King’s man, and dare not break my troth. Not for the highest
lady in the world, not even for her love, will I set this reproach upon my
lord.’ (344)
Lanval specifically says that to give into the queen’s wishes would cause him disgrace in the eyes of the king and, ultimately in the eyes of God since king’s ruled mostly under divine right. For these reasons, he must deny her. Even though the real reason behind Lanval’s denial of the queen is most likely his love for his Maiden, the ideal of loyalty being a prominent ideal in “Lanval” can be traced back to the idea of the Crusades. During the Crusades, the knights were the ones leading the battles. To be able to lead the forces of squires and peasants against the non-Christian forces, they had to have complete faith not only in their religion but also in their king. Lanval represents a knight who fully accepts his position under the king, both when he denies the Queen and when he accepts his punishment for doing so.
Another aspect of chivalry that Chestre’s version exaggerates that Marie’s does not is status and money. In “Sir Launfal,” there is the added character of the mayor that helps to emphasize this theme. When Launfal first thinks he has fallen from Arthur’s grace, he spends all of his money. According to Raymond Rudorff in his book Knights and the Age of Chivalry, “after bravery and loyalty, nothing was so greatly admired in a knight as lavish spending and hospitality, even if it led to bankruptcy” (108). It seems Launfal is attempting to regain favor with the townspeople, but after he fails at that, he seeks out the mayor’s inn for lodging. After learning that Launfal is not in good standing with Arthur, and that he is poor, the mayor refuses him decent lodging. When Launfal returns to town later in the story, after he has been overly generous with his money, the mayor invites him to dine with him, to which Launfal says:
Sir Mayor, God reward you:
While I was in my poverty,
You never invited me to dine;
Now I have more gold and possessions
That my friends have sent me,
Than thou and all thine!
Chestre is critiquing the social concept of status. There were many different levels of knights in the Middle Ages, ranging from those born of aristocracy, those who held some political power, and those who acted mostly as bodyguards for landowning lords. At the beginning of the story, it states that Launfal was made “the kings steward” (32) mostly because of his extreme wealth and generosity to other squires and knights. Only when Launfal is rich is he in good favor of the townspeople. This contrasts with Marie’s version as when Launfal is slighted, the townspeople “felt little joy to see so stout a knight misprized” (341).
Also, in Chestre’s version when Launfal reveals he has a lover to the queen, the poem immediately laments Launfal’s loss of material goods, rather than the loss of his lover:
He looked in his purse
That proved him money altogether plentiful
When that he had needed
And there was nothing, for in truth to say;
And Gyfre was ridden away
Upon Blaunchard, his steed (733-8)
By lamenting over his loss of earthly possessions, Chestre’s version shows that what Launfal will miss most is his ability to remain in the good favor of the people by being prosperous and generous. In Marie’s version, Lanval most deeply regrets losing his “friend,” so much so that he even contemplates suicide and death at multiple points after he reveals her existence:
Very near he came to ending all his trouble with his knife. (345)
Had any man slain him on the road, he would have counted him his friend. (345)
This element of suicide for love is a drastic difference between the two stories, where Lanval most desires his lady, Launfal desires everything else. This change in focus, of the lady as lover to the lady as patron, is most likely the reflection of an increased interest in women’s literary and cultural influence, especially through patronage, in the time Chestre was writing.
It has been noted by many critics the differences in the intended audience of these two pieces. Marie’s “Lanval” was crafted for an aristocratic audience which is why her stories, including “Lanval,” focus on knights and the ladies they fall in love with. Chestre’s piece is considered a part of the group of “tail-rhyme romances” which were created for less educated audiences “such as those found in the market square or the courtyard of an inn” (“Sir Launfal”). The easy rhyme scheme and the strong rhythm of Chestre’s poem mad it easier for both the reciter to perform and for the listener to follow along. This alone strongly supports the changes found between the two pieces. Marie’s aristocratic audience would be more interested in a focus on courtly love and loyalty to the king because these were idealized versions of the reality they were living in. Chestre’s audience would be more interested in his descriptions of tournaments and wealth as tournaments were popular entertainment for all and the general audience would be more likely to sympathize with Launfal losing his money and his horse, rather than Lanval losing his lady.
The last significant moment that establishes the contrast of love and prowess in these pieces is the endings. In Marie’s, Lanval and the Maiden have a “ride off into the sunset” moment and live happily ever after in Avalon, the fairyland. This also happens in Chestre’s version, but he adds a stanza about how every year on a certain day, Launfal leaves fairyland and you can fight with him. Aside from Chestre obviously favoring the prowess of Launfal over the romance of the situations, both stories seem to have happy endings. However, it is interesting that the ideal life can only be lived out of the real world and in fairyland. This concept can be linked to both the real life situations of Marie and Chestre because it was common knowledge that a knight would have his wife but would also have other lovers as well. It was uncustomary for a knight to be in love with the one he marries (Class Lecture). In both of these lais, the knight remains faithful to his lover, and by ending the tales with this unrealistic, idealized situation, both stories remain true to the heart of what they are: a Breton Lai.
No comments:
Post a Comment