CHAPTER VI

THE PROSE LANCELOT--THE 'ENFANCES' OF THE HERO

In the preceding chapters we have examined certain romances of the _Lancelot_ cycle lying outside the great prose compilation which represents its final form. The _popular_ 'Lancelot' legend was the legend as told in the prose _Lancelot_, and the _Grail_ romances therewith incorporated. It is with these romances we must now deal.

The elements composing this vast compilation (which in its completed form appears to have aimed at embracing the entire Arthurian cycle in all its ramifications) are so diverse that it would, under any circumstances, be a matter of great difficulty to decide how best to analyse and examine the composite structure; and this initial difficulty is much increased by the fact that so far the material at our disposal, abundant though it be, is in an inchoate and unorganised condition. There is no critical edition of the prose _Lancelot_; and as we shall see in the following studies, not merely the MSS., but the numerous printed editions derived from the MSS., differ so widely from each other that until a critical text based on a comparison of _all_ the available versions is in our hands, it will be quite impossible to do more than form a tentative hypothesis, or advance a guarded suggestion as to the gradual growth and formation of the completed legend.

I would therefore entreat any readers of this and the subsequent chapters to bear in mind that I am not attempting any critical study of the prose _Lancelot_, as a whole--the time for such a study has not yet come--but rather I am examining (_a_) certain points of the prose legend which are of capital importance in themselves, or must have existed in some form even in a shorter version of the story, _e.g._, such as Lancelot's youth, and first appearance at court, his relations with Guinevere, and connection with the Grail story; (_b_) certain interesting variants in the texts we possess, variants which are of the greatest importance to English scholars as clearing up many of the difficulties connected with the character of the source used by Malory in his compilation.[96] My aim is to prepare the way for a critical examination of the prose _Lancelot_ rather than to myself offer such a critical examination.

In a previous chapter I hazarded the suggestion that the original germ of the whole story might prove to be a _lai_ recounting the theft of a child by a water-fairy, and in spite of the unwieldy dimensions to which the tale has grown, I think this suggestion will be found to hold good.

As I hinted above, the _Lancelot_ legend is not confined to the prose _Lancelot_, but it has affected romances originally entirely unconnected with our hero, such as the _Merlin_ and the _Tristan_. In the earliest forms of the story neither of these tales have anything whatever to do with Lancelot; in the latest versions _Tristan_ has been practically incorporated into the _Lancelot_, while _Merlin_ forms an elaborate introduction to it.

Though it has undergone a certain amount of modification, the tradition at the base of the _Merlin_ and prose _Lancelot_ appears to be identical with that related by the _Lanzelet_. The names Ban of Benoic and Pant of Genewîs are quite near enough to represent the same original, probably modified in the _Lanzelet_ by translation into another tongue. The story of the king driven from his kingdom and dying of a broken heart is the same, _au fond_, though the _motif_ has been varied, and in the prose _Lancelot_ the king's misfortunes are caused by treachery, and not by his own misgovernment. This is a very natural modification, and one likely to be caused by the growing popularity of the son, which would have a tendency to react favourably on the character of the father.[97]

It is clear that both versions of the _Merlin_ story know the _Lancelot_ legend in its completed form. Thus the Vulgate _Merlin_ knows of his two cousins, Lionel and Bohort, whose introduction into the legend marks that secondary stage, when not merely the hero, but the hero's race in its entirety, is selected for special honour.[98]

In the Ordinary, or Vulgate, _Merlin_, the enchanter is never brought into direct contact with Lancelot, but is betrayed to his doom before the birth of that hero takes place. In the _Suite de Merlin_, however, he and his treacherous love visit the castle of King Ban, and see the child, whose future fame Merlin prophesies; while the lady is identified with the fairy who brings up Lancelot.[99]

The _Suite_ also refers in a prophetic manner to certain subsequent feats of Lancelot, and introduces the personages of the _Tristan_ story, such as Morholt (Le Morhout),[100] a clear proof that it is posterior to the incorporation of this legend with the Arthurian cycle.

Of the two _Merlin_ versions, the _Suite_ therefore appears to be the later, but the Vulgate _Merlin_ also refers to the Grail romances,[101] so that it seems clear that both have been redacted subsequent to the completion of the _Lancelot_ story.

To return to the prose _Lancelot_. The story of the hero's youth, while agreeing in the main with that told by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, is yet marked by important modifications and additions. The brothers Lionel and Bohort appear on the scene, and become Lancelot's companions, while the whole conception of the kingdom of the Lady of the Lake is radically modified. It is no longer a _Meide-lant_; Lancelot has knight-attendants as well as cousin-playfellows, indeed, save for the _Mirage_, which counterfeits a lake and thus keeps off unwelcome intruders, the country is to all intents and purposes an ordinary earthly kingdom.[102]

When the lad (who is always called by his protectress _Fils du roi_, and has a more than adequate idea of his own importance) leaves the kingdom, which he does in order to seek knighthood at Arthur's hands, he goes gorgeously equipped, with armour, steed, and retinue of servants.

But his arrival at Arthur's court is most interesting and suggestive. Arthur meets him without the town, and consigns him to the care of _Ywain_, who, the next day, leads him to the palace through a crowd of spectators eager to look upon his beauty.

In a previous chapter I have commented upon the strong resemblance between the account of Lanzelet's entry into the world, as described by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, and that of Parzival, as related by Wolfram von Eschenbach. Both alike are ignorant of knightly skill and customs; both are unable to control their steeds, they cannot even hold the bridle; both are alike fair to look upon, but apparently foolish (_tumbe_); both are ignorant of their name and parentage. Different as the account of the prose _Lancelot_ is from this, and no difference could well be wider, yet here again the _Lancelot_ falls into line with the _Perceval_ story, and again in the form peculiar to Wolfram von Eschenbach; for there, too, Parzival makes his entry on foot, through a crowd eager to behold his beauty, and his guide is the squire _Iwanet_.[103]

It will be remembered that in Chrétien's version of the story Perceval's entry is made under quite different circumstances. He rides into the hall, and advances so close to the king that his horse's head touches him, and subsequently he refuses to dismount.

The correspondence of the name Ywain=Iwanet is also significant. In the case of Wolfram's poem it has been generally concluded that the name was a diminutive of _Iwein_ or _Iwan_, and therefore distinct from the name Chrétien gives to Gawain's squire who aids Perceval to disarm his fallen foe--_Yonet_. Hertz, in his recent translation of the _Parzival_,[104] takes this view, though he would differentiate the Ywain referred to from King Urien's famous son, and in my translation of the poem I adopted the same view. But further study has led me to doubt this solution. I now think it more probable that the name is in both cases the same, _i.e._ a form of the Breton _Yonec_, which we find with the varying spelling, _Iwenec_ and _Yonet_.[105] Thus both Chrétien and Wolfram refer to the same character; and the compiler of the prose _Lancelot_ probably knew the _Perceval_ story under a form analogous rather to Wolfram than to Chrétien. Whether the form _Ywain_ was adopted through a mistake, or from a desire to substitute a well-known hero for an obscure squire, it is impossible to say, in any case the correspondence, though less striking than the similar passages of the _Lanzelet_, is worth noting.[106]

Again we find that Guinevere, failing to obtain an answer from the youth, who is struck dumb by her beauty, makes some contemptuous remarks as to his lack of sense, and leaves the hall. This may be compared with _Parzival_, Book III. ll. 988-9.[107]

A further indication of contact with the _Perceval_ romances is afforded by the love-trances which overtake the hero at the most inconvenient moment, and are repeated _ad nauseam_ in the most clumsy and inartistic manner. It is noticeable that on the occasion of the first attack (in the case of Lancelot one can only regard these trances as an intermittent malady) the knight is clad in red armour and leans on his spear--as does Perceval when he sees the blood-drops on the snow. In the prose _Lancelot_ it is invariably the sight, and not the memory, of Guinevere which causes the trance, a far less poetical conception than that of the _Perceval_.

But in face of the passage quoted by M. Paulin Paris, in his translation of the prose _Lancelot_, probably few will contend that the story of _Perceval_ was not anterior to, and well-known by the compiler of, the first mentioned romance. _Et le grant conte de Lancelot convient repairier en la fin à Perceval qui est chiés et la fin de tos les contes ès autres chevaliers. Et tout sont branches de lui, qu'il acheva la grant queste. Et li contes Perceval meismes est une branche del haut conte del Graal qui est chiés de tos les contes._[108]

We should note here that when this particular passage was written the writer evidently knew nothing of Galahad as the Grail Winner, though he knew the _Lancelot_ story in an advanced stage. We shall have occasion to refer to this later on.

In the account of Lancelot's first appearance at court we find an incident which appears to connect the story with a cycle of poems bearing a curious resemblance to the _Perceval_ cycle--the _Bel Inconnu_ poems. Immediately after the hero has received knighthood, as they sit at meat in the hall, a messenger arrives, sent by the 'Dame de Nohan,'[109] asking for a champion to aid her against the King of Northumberland. Lancelot (whose name we must remember is not yet revealed, and who is referred to by the compiler as _Le Beau Varlet_) at once requests that the adventure be given to him, and, though Arthur demurs on account of his youth and inexperience, insists that he has a right to it, as the first boon he has claimed since he was knighted.

It is under precisely similar circumstances that the hero of the _Bel Inconnu_ stories undertakes his first adventure.

Others have been struck by this resemblance, and M. Philipot, in his review of Dr. Schofield's _Studies on the Libeaus Desconus_,[110] maintains that the _Lancelot_ story (more particularly in the version known to Ulrich von Zatzikhoven) is the elder of the two, and the source of the parallel adventure of the _Bel Inconnu_ group.

With this view I cannot agree. I have elsewhere[111] given reasons for holding the true order of the _Enfances_ to be as follows, _Perceval_, _Le Bel Inconnu_, _Lancelot_, and to this view I adhere. We must remember that the French original of the _Lanzelet_ must in any case be prior to 1194; how much earlier we have no means of deciding, but the _Lanzelet_ has points of contact with both the _Perceval_ (Enfances) and the _Bel Inconnu_ (Fier Baiser) story. Further, the prose _Lancelot_, though differing very widely from Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's poem, yet, as we see, also offers parallels both to _Perceval_ and _Le Bel Inconnu_; such parallels being entirely different from those of the _Lanzelet_. To assert that these stories borrowed from the _Lancelot_ would involve the existence, at an early date, of a fully developed and widely diffused _Lancelot_ legend, a conclusion which the absence of all reference to the hero in the earlier Arthurian romances forbids.

To my mind, when we have three separate cycles of romance closely connected with each other, if we desire to discover which is the oldest of the stories we should ask in the first instance, in which of the stories are the incidents common to all the essence, in which are they the accidents, of the tale. It is quite clear that they are not essential to the _Lancelot_ story. The characteristics of ignorance, simplicity, and headlong impulsiveness attributed to him by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, are entirely foreign to his character as elsewhere represented; even in the _Lanzelet_ they are promptly discarded: but they _are_ the very essence of Perceval's character, he, and no other, is the _schöne tumbe_ of romance. Again, the adventure of the _Fier Baiser_ has absolutely nothing to do with Lancelot; it is manifestly dragged into the _Lanzelet_ version 'by the head and shoulders,' and has no connection with the context, but it is the crown and completion of the adventures of Gawain's nameless son.[112]

Whatever be the connection between the _Perceval_ and _Bel Inconnu_ stories, I think it is clear that both were well known before the development of the _Lancelot_ legend took place, and that in the process of development this latter borrowed from both. A close examination of the variants of the _Lancelot_ 'Enfances' will, I think, strengthen the hypothesis advanced in a previous chapter, _i.e._ that the connection of the hero with a water-fairy _alone_ is of the essence of the tale, all the rest is comparatively late in development, and markedly _non_-original and secondary in character.[113]