Many of the characters in this story have no name; none of the knights (save Gawain and Menegault) are named nor are any female characters except the queen. Even Lancelot is anonymous for most of this reading. Why do you think this story leaves so many of its characters unamed? What effect does this anonymity have?
King Arthur & His World
ENGL 361 | Spring 2019 | Dr. Myra Seaman
while most of the characters remain nameless in this reading, other traits of the characters are emphasized. Before Lancelot is named in the story he is “our knight” or characterized by his Love for the queen. Love, Hatred, and Reason appear with capitalization in the story demonstrating their power of people. On page 216, the Knight of the Cart is so lost in contemplation of his love that he claims “he forgot who he was; he was uncertain whether or not he truly existed; he was unable to recall his own name” and is completely unaware of the world around him. The anonymity of his character and others is purposeful in showing the reader how little names matter to the characters themselves. In the knight’s pursuit of courtly love, he encounters many nameless men and women that are unimportant to his journey. They are nameless because only the name of the queen (Guinevere) matters to him and his Love. Additionally, the queen is the only one to know his name towards the end of the reading. She, the only person worthy to him, states his name giving him strength.
I think that the reader knows that Lancelot is brave and in love with Guinevere before reading the Knight of the Cart. Giving anonymity to Lancelot makes him more than his reputation. He can be read as an individual rather than “Lancelot the knight who loves Guinevere and is brave.” His love for Guinevere is truly unique, he cherishes everything about her, even hair found in a comb “he would not have traded it for a cart loaded with emeralds or carbuncles.” Similar to being more than the “knight of the cart” he is also more becomes than his reputation of “Lancelot.” You read about his experiences, making him more in depth than his coined characteristics. A reader learns he decides to take the sword bridge and offers the underwater bridge to Gawain. A reader learns he is not attracted to an attractive girl who gives him a place to stay because he is so in love with Guinevere, and he wants to joust immediately even when he is injured to rescue Guinevere. I think his name being revealed after these accounts makes him a chance to be an individual.
Anonymity also makes the reader pay more attention to the story. A reader has to pay more attention to the context when they can’t rely on names. A reader only knows “the other knight” or “our knight” or “the knight of the cart” if they are paying attention to the story. It also makes it more interesting when there is anonymity. The story would not be as interesting if it had been “Kay took Guinevere into the forrest. Lancelot and Gawain had to rescue her on a quest.”
I think that the reader knows that Lancelot is brave and in love with Guinevere before reading the Knight of the Cart. Giving anonymity to Lancelot makes him more than his reputation. He can be read as an individual rather than “Lancelot the knight who loves Guinevere and is brave.” His love for Guinevere is truly unique, he cherishes everything about her, even hair found in a comb “he would not have traded it for a cart loaded with emeralds or carbuncles.” Similar to being more than the “knight of the cart” he is also more becomes than his reputation of “Lancelot.” You read about his experiences, making him more in depth than his coined characteristics. A reader learns he decides to take the sword bridge and offers the underwater bridge to Gawain. A reader learns he is not attracted to an attractive girl who gives him a place to stay because he is so in love with Guinevere, and he wants to joust immediately even when he is injured to rescue Guinevere. I think his name being revealed after these accounts gives him a chance to be an individual.
Anonymity also makes the reader pay more attention to the story. A reader has to pay more attention to the context when they can’t rely on names. A reader only knows “the other knight” or “our knight” or “the knight of the cart” if they are paying attention to the story. It also makes it more interesting when there is anonymity. The story would not be as interesting if it had been “Kay took Guinevere into the forrest. Lancelot and Gawain had to rescue her on a quest.”
I agree with Teresa that, by not naming Lancelot for a large portion of the story, Chretien de Troyes allows his unique character to develop for the reader in a way it could not have if we would have been explicitly told who he was from the beginning. I felt that the use of moniker like “our knight” led me to judge him as a character with less bias/expectations based on knowledge of his reputation. On a different note, the aspect of this anonymity that we have seen throughout the Arthur stories we’ve read so far that I find interesting is how it is significantly more common for female characters to go unnamed. As was pointed out in the question, Guinevere is the only named female character in this narrative (and is she is more often referred to as “the queen,” with her beauty or “majesty” emphasized [209]). The story is full of women who are called “elegant and beautiful maidens,” “the fairest in the land” (212), “comely and attractive girl[s]” (219), etc. The effect of this is that the reader gets the sense that who they are does not matter as much as whether or not they possess the ideal female qualities (beauty, grace, i.e.) that were valued by the court. I think it would be interesting to examine these anonymous women of King Arthur and look into whether or not they support certain gender roles more than named women, like Morgan Le Fay and Guinevere.
Sir Kay, King Bademagu, Count Guinable, and King Arthur are also named. I think the writer only named important characters–knights of the Round Table, kings, and villains that appear in multiple scenes. Most of the unnamed characters were only there for a particular leg of the story. They fulfill a purpose, but they aren’t important enough to the story to be named. Women weren’t considered as important back then, and there’s only one whose name really matters to the story: Guinevere. I wondered at first if Sir Lancelot wouldn’t reveal his name out of shame that he rode in the cart, but later, you realize it’s because he doesn’t care about fame. His name doesn’t mean anything, or he wouldn’t have got in the cart. He cares only about pleasing Guinevere. Love has given him tunnel vision. Every time we see Lanelot experience a strong emotion or determination, it’s always linked back to Guinevere. When she rudely dismisses him in the foreign land, he’s distraught. When he thinks she’s dead, he tries to kill himself because “He did not care to live another hour” (260). Lancelot asks God “why didn’t you have the strength and power to kill me before my lady?” (260). When Guinevere finds out Lancelot is still alive, she says “were he dead, I assure you that I could never again be happy” (261). When Lancelot is held prisoner, he escapes to go to the tournament–not to win it, but just to see Guinevere. When Guinevere says, “do your worst,” he obeys, even as the other knights mock him. “Cowardice has him so firmly in her grip that he can do nothing to escape her,” the men jeered. This proves to Guinevere that Lancelot loves her because only a man in love would discard his reputation like that. When Guinevere tells him “do your best,” he easily bests the men who were heckling him. He didn’t care about winning glory. It was all about proving his love to Guinevere. is name is important to the story, so eventually we did have to find out his name. But it wasn’t important to Lancelot; he didn’t need anyone but Guinevere to know his name or think well of him. That’s why his name was withheld.
I think the story leaves many characters relatively nameless due to the strong aspects of chivalry weaved throughout the tale. In a society such as the middle ages, a man is often defined by his name and his social status. By leaving his characters anonymous, the author has taken this initial judgement away from the reader and instead let the character’s actions speak louder than any title, revealing the true honor, or lack thereof, within each character. Before the reader even learns Lancelot’s name, they already know he has an honorable character due to his dedication to Love with the Queen, even leading him to ride in a cart whose “disgrace did not matter” (212) and cross a Sword Bridge, which is “more difficult and so much more perilous that it has never been crossed by man” (214). Yet none of these trials bothered him because he was so insistent upon saving his Queen. The lack of names also somewhat places the reader in Lancelot’s shoes, to the point that they are not distracted by titles or other stories they have once been told about certain characters. For example, there was an entire moment when Lancelot “still wrapped in his thoughts, heard nothing” (216) of a knight’s warnings. This single-minded focus is shared with the reader when they are given little evidence to who Lancelot is even encountering.