Lancelot of the Laik Part 1

Lancelot of the Laik.

by Walter William Skeat.

PREFACE.

I.--DESCRIPTION OF THE MS., ETC.

A former edition of the present poem was printed for the Maitland Club, in 1839, and edited by Joseph Stevenson, Esq. It has saved me all trouble of transcription, but by no means, I am sorry to say, that of correction. Those who possess the older edition will readily perceive that it differs from the present one very frequently indeed, and that the variations are often such as considerably to affect the sense. Many of the errors in it (such as _casualtyee_ for _casualytee_, _grone_, for _gone_, _reprent_ for _repent_) are clearly typographical, but there are others which would incline me to believe that the transcription was too hastily executed; several pa.s.sages being quite meaningless. Near the conclusion of Mr Stevenson's preface we read: "The pieces which have been selected for the present volume[P1] are printed with such errors of transcription as have crept into them by the carelessness of the scribe;" a statement which certainly implies that there was no intention on his part of departing from the original. Yet that he sometimes unconsciously did so to such an extent as considerably to alter (or destroy) the sense, the reader may readily judge from a few examples:--

[Footnote P1: The volume contains other poems besides "Sir Lancelot."]

LINE. EDITION OF 1839. TRUE READING OF THE MS.

26. fatil (_fatal_), fat.i.t (_fated_).

285. unarmyt (_unarmed_), enarmyt (_fully armed_).

682. can here, cam nere.

700. rendit (_rent_), vondit (_wounded_).

764. refuse (_refusal?_), reprefe (_defeat_).

861. felith (_feeleth_), ?et.i.th (_setteth_).

1054. vyt, ry{ch}t.

1084. speiris, spuris.

1455. c.u.myng (_coming_), cunyng (_skill_).

1621. he war, be war (_beware_).

1641. promy, puny (_punish_).

2010. ane desyne, medysyne.

2092. born, lorn (_lost_).

2114. havin, harm.

2142. Hymene (!), hyme (_him_).

2219. such, furth (_forth_).

2245. al so y-vroght, al foly vroght.

2279. chichingis (!), thithingis (_tidings_).

2446. love, lore (_teaching_). Etc.

Several omissions also occur, as, _e.g._, of the word "off" in l. 7, of the word "tressore" in l. 1715, and of four whole lines at a time in two instances; viz., lines 1191-4, and 2877-80. It will be found, in fact, that the former text can seldom be safely quoted for the purposes of philology; and I cannot but think Mr Stevenson's claim of being accurate to be especially unfortunate; and the more so, because the genuine text is much simpler and more intelligible than the one which he has given.

The original MS. is to be found in the Cambridge University Library, marked Kk. 1. 5. It formerly formed part of a thick volume, labelled "Tracts;" but these are now being separated, for greater convenience, into several volumes. The MS. of "Lancelot" has little to do with any of the rest as regards its subject, but several other pieces are in the same hand-writing; and, at the end of one of them, an abstract of Solomon's proverbs, occur the words, "Expliciunt Dicta Salamonis, per manum V. de F."[P2] This hand-writing, though close, is very regular, and my own impression certainly is that the scribe has almost always succeeded in preserving the sense of the poem, though there is much confusion in the dialectal forms, as will be shewn presently.

[Footnote P2: See Mr Lumby's editions of "Early Scottish Verse"

and "Ratis Raving," both edited for the E.E.T.S. from this MS.

Only the latter of these is in the hand-writing of V. de F.]

The present text is as close a fac-simile of the MS. as can be represented by printed letters, every peculiarity being preserved as far as practicable, even including the use of _y_ for __ (or _th_); so that the reader must remember that _yow_ in l. 94 stands for _thow_, and _yis_ in l. 160 for _this_, and so on; but this ought not to cause much difficulty. The sole points of difference are the following:

1. In the MS. the headings "Prologue," "Book I." etc., do not occur.

2. The lines do not always begin (in the MS.) with a capital letter.

3. The letters _italicized_ are (in the MS.) represented by signs of contraction. One source of difficulty is the flourish over a word, used _sometimes_ as a contraction for _m_ or _n_. I have expanded this flourish as an _m_ or _n_ wherever such letter is manifestly required; but it also occurs where it is best to attach to it no value. In such instances, the flourish occurs most frequently over the last word in a line, and (except very rarely) only over words which have an _m_ or _n_ in them. It would thus seem that their presence is due to the fact of the scribe wanting employment for his pen after the line had been written, and that the flourish therefore appears over certain words, not so much because the _n_ is _wanting_ in them, as because it is _there already_. Such words have a special attraction for the wandering pen.

Still, in order that the reader may know wherever such flourishes occur, they have all been noted down; thus, in l. 46, the stroke over the _n_ in "gren" means that a long flourish occurs drawn over the whole word, and the reader who wishes to expand this word into "gren{e}" or "gren{n}" may easily do it for himself, though he should observe that the most usual form of the word is simply "gren," as in lines 1000, 1305.

In a few nouns ending in _-l_, the plural is indicated by a stroke drawn through the doubled letter; as in _perillis_, _sadillis_, etc.; and even the word _ellis_ (else) is thus abbreviated.

4. I am responsible for all hyphens, and letters and words between square brackets; thus, "with-outen" is in the MS. "with outen;" and "knych[t]ly" is written "knychly." Whenever a line begins with a capital letter included between two brackets, the original has a blank s.p.a.ce left, evidently intended for an illuminated letter. Wherever illuminated letters actually occur in the MS., they are denoted in this edition by large capitals.

5. We find, in the MS., both the long and the twisted _s_ (? and s).

These have been noted down as they occur, though I do not observe any law for their use. The letter "" has been adopted as closely resembling a symbol in the MS., which apparently has the force of double _s_, and is not unlike the "_sz_" used in modern German hand-writing. It may be conveniently denoted by _ss_ when the type "" is not to be had, and is sometimes so represented in the "Notes."

6. The MS. is, of course, not punctuated. The punctuation in the present edition is mostly new; and many pa.s.sages, which in the former edition were meaningless, have thus been rendered easily intelligible. I am also responsible for the headings of the pages, the abstract at the sides of them, the numbering of the folios in the margin, the notes, and the glossary; which I hope may be found useful. The greatest care has been taken to make the text accurate, the proof-sheets having been compared with the MS. _three times_ throughout.[P3]

[Footnote P3: This refers to the edition printed in 1865. In executing the present reprint, the proof-sheets have been once more compared with the MS., and a very few insignificant errors have been thus detected and rectified.]

II.--DESCRIPTION OF THE POEM.

The poem itself is a loose paraphrase of not quite fourteen folios of the first of the three volumes of the French Romance of Lancelot du Lac, if we refer to it as reprinted at Paris in 1513, in three volumes, thin folio, double-columned.[P4] The English poet has set aside the French Prologue, and written a new one of his own, and has afterwards translated and amplified that portion of the Romance which narrates the invasion of Arthur's territory by "le roy de oultre les marches, nomme galehault" (in the English _Galiot_), and the defeat of the said king by Arthur and his allies.

[Footnote P4: "As to the Romance of Sir Lancelot, our author [Gower], among others on the subject, refers to a volume of which he was the hero; perhaps that of Robert de Borron, altered soon afterwards by G.o.defroy de Leigny, under the t.i.tle of _Le Roman de la Charrette_, and printed, with additions, at Paris by Antony Verard, in the year 1494.

For if thou wilt the bokes rede Of Launcelot and other mo, Then might thou seen how it was tho Of armes," etc. (GOWER: _Confessio Amantis_, Book iv.)

_Quoted from_ Warton's English Poetry, vol. ii., p. 234, _ed._ 1840.

I quote this as bearing somewhat on the subject, though it should be observed that _Le Roman de la Charrette_ is not the same with _Lancelot du Lac_, but only a romance of the same cla.s.s. Chaucer also refers to Lancelot in his Nonnes Prestes Tale, l. 392; and it is mentioned in the famous lines of Dante (_Inf._ v. 127)--

"Noi leggevamo un giorno per diletto Di Lancilotto, come amor lo strinse," &c.]

The Prologue (lines 1-334) tells how the author undertook to write a romance to please his lady-love; and how, after deciding to take as his subject the story of Lancelot as told in the French Romance, yet finding himself unequal to a close translation of the whole of it, he determined to give a paraphrase of a portion of it only. After giving us a brief summary of the earlier part by the simple process of telling us what he will _not_ relate, he proposes to begin the story at the point where Lancelot has been made prisoner by the lady of Melyhalt, and to take as his subject the wars between Arthur and Galiot, and the distinction which Lancelot won in them; and afterwards to tell how Lancelot made peace between these two kings, and was consequently rewarded by Venus, who

"makith hyme his ladice grace to have" (l. 311).

The latter part of the poem, it may be observed, has not come down to us. The author then concludes his Prologue by beseeching to have the support of a very celebrated poet, whose name he will not mention, but will only say that

"Ye fresch enditing of his laiting toung Out throuch yis world so wid is yroung," etc.[P5] (l. 328.)

[Footnote P5: He does not necessarily imply that the poet invoked was still alive; and we might almost suppose Petrarch to be meant, who was more proud of his Latin poem called "Africa" than of his odes and sonnets. See Hallam's Literary History (4 vols.), vol.

i., p. 85. But this is pure conjecture.]

The first Book introduces us to King Arthur at Carlisle.[P6] The king is visited by dreams, which he imagines to forebode misfortune; he therefore convokes all his clerks, and inquires of them the meaning of the dreams, proposing to hang them in the event of their refusal. Thus strongly urged, they tell him that those on whom he most relies will fail him at his need; and when he further inquires if this evil fate can be averted, they answer him very obscurely that it can only be remedied by help of the water-lion, the leech, and the flower; a reply which the king evidently regards as unsatisfactory. Soon after an aged knight, fully armed, enters the palace, with a message from King Galiot, requiring him to give "tribute and rent." Arthur at once refuses, somewhat to the astonishment of the knight, who is amazed at his hardihood. Next arrives a message from the lady of Melyhalt, informing Arthur of the actual presence of Galiot's army. We are then momentarily introduced to Lancelot, who is pining miserably in the lady's custody.

Next follows a description of Galiot's army, at sight of the approach of which King Arthur and his "niece," Sir Gawain, confer as to the best means of resistance. In the ensuing battle Sir Gawain greatly distinguishes himself, but is at last severely wounded. Sir Lancelot, coming to hear of Sir Gawain's deeds, craves leave of the lady to be allowed to take part in the next conflict, who grants him his boon on condition that he promise to return to his prison. She then provides for him a red courser, and a complete suit of red armour, in which guise he appears at the second battle, and is the "head and comfort of the field;" the queen and Sir Gawain beholding his exploits from a tower.

The result of the battle convinces Galiot that Arthur is not strong enough at present to resist him sufficiently, and that he thus runs the risk of a too easy, and therefore dishonourable, conquest; for which excellent reason he grants Arthur a twelvemonth's truce, with a promise to return again in increased force at the expiration of that period. Sir Lancelot returns to Melyhalt according to promise, and the lady is well pleased at hearing the reports of his famous deeds, and visits him when asleep, out of curiosity to observe his appearance after the fight.

[Footnote P6: But the French has "Cardueil." See l. 2153.]

In the Second Book the story makes but little progress, nearly the whole of it being occupied by a long lecture or sermon delivered to Arthur by a "master," named Amytans, on the duties of a king; the chief one being that a king should give presents to everybody--a duty which is insisted on with laborious tediousness. Lines 1320-2130 are almost entirely occupied with this subject, and will be found to be the driest part of the whole narrative. In the course of his lecture, Amytans explains at great length the obscure prophecy mentioned above, shewing that by the water-lion is meant G.o.d the Father, by the leech G.o.d the Son, and by the flower the Virgin Mary. Though the outline of a similar lecture exists in the old French text, there would seem to be a special reason for the length to which it is here expanded. Some lines certainly seem to hint at events pa.s.sing in Scotland at the time when the poem was composed.

Thus, "kings may be excused when of tender age" (l. 1658); but when they come to years of discretion should punish those that have wrested the law. Again we find (l. 1920) strong warnings against flatterers, concluding (l. 1940) with the expression,

"Wo to the realme that havith sich o chans!"