The Enfances of Perceval in the Prose Tristan La biographie de Perceval le Gallois a été maintes fois étoffée et remaniée par les auteurs médiévaux, et c’est à juste titre que la critique moderne a consacré de nombreuses études au devenir du personnage. Dans ce contexte, le Tristan en prose est toutefois rarement pris en considération et n’a suscité que fort peu d’intérêt en tant que jalon dans le développement du héros. Notamment la version courte, qui présente les enfances de Perceval dans une forme différente de celle de ses sources, Le Conte du Graal de Chrétien et le Lancelot en prose, mérite un examen plus attentif. En fait cette version du Tristan combine pour la première fois les deux traditions antérieures, en présentant Perceval aussi bien comme un enfant naïf que comme un jeune homme sérieux, digne de devenir un héros du Graal. Elle représente ainsi une des dernières tentatives médiévales d’expérimenter avec les possibilités qu’offraient les traditions antérieures concernant le personnage. Tout en examinant en détail ces nouvelles enfances de Perceval, le but de cet article voudrait montrer leur importance pour la compréhension de la genèse des différentes proses arthuriennes. Not since 1932 when Alfons Hilka published the text of the childhood and youth of Perceval as found in Ms. B.N.f.fr. 757 of the Prose Tristan, comparing it to the corresponding section of the Prose Lancelot 1 , has the Tristan excited much interest among critics as a phase in the development of Perceval as an Arthurian character. Antoinette Saly does not mention it in her study of texts on «Les ‹Enfances Perceval›» 2 , Arthur Groos and Norris Lacy do not include it among the seemingly exhaustive list of medieval Perceval texts discussed in their introduction to Perceval/ Parzival: a Casebook 3 , and Lacy did not mention it in his paper on Perceval given at Utrecht in the summer of 2005 4 . The only criticism in over seventy years to be interested in the Perceval of the prose Tristan is a brief section of Fanni Bogdanow’s 1973 article entitled «The transformation of the role of Perceval in some thirteenth century prose romances» 5 . Yet both forms of the Tristan, that is the short form and the various versions of the longer form 6 , present the enfances of Perceval. The short form, commonly 1 Hilka 1932. 2 Saly 1999. 3 Groos/ Lacy (ed.) 2002: 1-46. 4 N. Lacy: «Perceval from North to South», paper given at the Conference of the International Arthurian Society, 27 July, 2005. 5 Bogdanow 1973: 55-57. 6 Emmanuèle Baumgartner has identified 3 versions of the long form: Version II, exemplified by Ms. B.N.f.fr. 335-36, Version III containing interpolations from the Vulgate Cycle, which Ms. Vienna Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 2542 certainly does, though it is not absolutely clear whether Baumgartner actually means to include it among the manuscripts of this version, and Version IV, a later version heavily interpolated from a variety of sources and found in Ms. B.N.f.fr. 99, Chantilly Musée Condé 645-6-7, St Petersburg Rossijskaya Nacional’naja Biblioteka Fr.F.V. XII.2. and New York, Pierpont Morgan 41. On these versions, cf. Baumgartner 1975: 53-62 and 67-76. Vox Romanica 65 (2006): 72-85 The Enfances of Perceval in the Prose Tristan known as Version I, will hitherto be referred to as the Tristan 1. It is exemplified by Ms. B.N.f.fr. 757 of which four out of the projected five volumes have been published by Champion under the direction of Philippe Ménard 7 . The long versions, whether interpolated or not, will be referred to collectively as the Tristan 2. The long form is by far the more widespread. Only one of its versions has been edited, the one generally considered as the Vulgate, exemplified by Ms. Vienna Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 2542 which has been published by Droz, again under the direction of Philippe Ménard 8 . In the Tristan 2, the arrival of Perceval at court and his subsequent dubbing are narrated twice: in volume IV and again in volume VI of the Droz edition. The second of these is preceded by scenes of Perceval’s childhood. This whole section, however, is part of a long interpolation from the prose Lancelot that relates among other episodes the visits of Lancelot and Bohort to the Grail castle 9 . Though the interpolation is to be found in a large number of the manuscripts, it by no means occurs in all 10 . The only reference to the young Perceval that is common to all manuscripts of the Tristan 2 is exceedingly short, taking up hardly two pages of the edited text 11 , and relates the arrival of Agloval at Arthur’s court, accompanied by Perceval whom he brings to be knighted. It includes only Agloval’s introduction of his brother to Arthur and his request, supported by Kay and the other knights, that Arthur make Perceval a knight. This Arthur does the following day, followed by feasting in his honour. It is the Tristan 1 that should titillate Perceval fans and scholars. It presents in detail the childhood, knighting and departure of Perceval from Arthur’s court in a form that diverges significantly from the material of earlier romances. The framework of the episode is that of the corresponding section of the Lancelot: Agloval, in quest of Lancelot, arrives by chance at the house of his widowed mother who, out of grief, is raising her youngest son far from the world of chivalry that has killed her husband and two of her sons. He meets and admires Perceval, who accompanies him to Arthur’s court to become a knight. As in the Lancelot, their mother dies. Arthur dubs Perceval who during the subsequent feast is recognised by a hitherto mute damsel who is miraculously able to speak in order to address him as «serjant de Jesu Crist, vierge chevalier et net» 12 . She seats him at the Round Table next to the Perillous Seat that will belong to the 73 7 Menard (dir.) 1997-2003. The earlier part of the romance, common to both versions, has been edited by R. L. Curtis, using Ms. Carpentras Bibl.mun. 404: Curtis (ed.) 1963-85. 8 Menard (dir.) 1987-97. 9 Cf. Micha (ed.) 1978-83: 6/ 171§30-241§12 and Menard (dir.) 1987-97: 6/ §§49-79. For the section on Perceval’s enfances, cf.Micha (ed.) 1978-83: 6/ 183§10-194§28 and Menard (dir.) 1987-97: 6/ §§55-60. 10 It does not occur in the manuscripts of Version II as identified by Baumgartner and represented by Ms. B.N.f.fr. 335-36 11 Menard (dir.) 1987-97: 4/ §140 l. 13-§142 l. 15. 12 Menard (dir.) 1997-2003: 2/ §63, l. 20 and Micha, (ed.) 1978-83: 6/ §24, l. 5. Elaine Polley 74 Good Knight Galahad, and shortly thereafter, she dies. The episode ends with the departure of Perceval from court in quest of Lancelot, shamed by Kay and Mordred’s jibes that he prefers peace to war and that his shield has never seen a blow. But the Lancelot is not the only intertext or «palimpsest», a term enlarged by Genette to include a literary text that has been overwritten 13 and which Lacy uses to describe the intertextual relationship between Chrétien’s Perceval and the Perlesvaus 14 . In the earliest of its Perceval scenes the Tristan 1 weaves back in material from Chrétien that the Lancelot laid aside. This is particularly interesting, as it shows the Tristan 1’s concern for both completeness, i. e. to include all there is to tell about Perceval, and for correctness or doxa, i. e. to return to the early version that might well be the right one. Such a return to the material of the old familiar version in verse is not uncommon in Arthurian literature. For example, one later family of manuscripts of the prose Lancelot presents in place of the Charrette section a derhymed version of Chrétien’s Le Chevalier de la charrette, in order to incorporate certain elements that the Vulgate Charrette section did not contain 15 . Of this, Annie Combes says that «Tout se passe . . . comme si les rédacteurs avaient choisi de «retourner» à Chrétien et de présenter une version plus fidèle au Chevalier de la charrette» 16 . Also, one later manuscript of the prose Tristan, Ms. B.N.f.fr. 103, has two instances of a return to the earlier verse versions of the Tristan legend. It includes the episode of Tristan’s combat with the dragon, not present in the prose versions, and, rather than presenting the death of Tristan in Cornwall at the hands of Mark, it situates his death in Brittany, caused by the jealousy of the second Iseut, in a form close to the versions of Béroul and the Folie de Berne 17 . At the moment of his appearance in the Tristan 1, Perceval is Chrétien’s nice. Though greatly shortened, the scene in question is in many ways identical to the corresponding scene in Chrétien. In both cases, Perceval’s first encounter with a knight occurs while he is out alone throwing javelots, but instead of five knights, he sees only one, his brother Agloval. Here, too, bedazzled by the armour shining in the sun, he believes the knight to be an angel or even God and falls in prayer, a reaction which Agloval, like Chrétien’s chief knight, mistakes for fear. As in the earlier text, Perceval repeatedly cites his mother’s lessons: she has said that God and the angels are the most beautiful beings and she has told him to kneel and pray to God. Even the language of parts of this section is similar to that of Chrétien, though different enough to prevent the identification of a particular manuscript as source: 13 Genette 1982. 14 Lacy 2002: 98. 15 The manuscripts in question are Mss. B.N.f.fr. 119, B.N.f.fr. 122 and Paris Ars. 3480. 16 Combes 2001: 241. For more information on the version of the Charrette section of the Lancelot presented by this manuscript, cf. Combes 2001: 240-48 and Hult 2005 17 On the return to the verse version by this manuscript, cf. Baumgartner 1975: 77-83 The Enfances of Perceval in the Prose Tristan Chrétien Tristan Des gavelos que il avoit, . . . Perceval . . . aloit tot contreval la plaigne Aloit environ lui lanchant, gitant et lancent javeloz, et corroit, une heure Une eure [arriere] et autre avant, avant et l’autre arrieres, une haut et l’autre Une eure en bas et autre en haut, bas. (§52, 2-5) 19 , (v. 96-99) 18 , «Ne me dist pas ma mere fable . . . il cuide tout vraiement qe ce soit ou Dieu Qui me dist que li angle estoient ou angre, car de ce se recorde il bien qe sa Les plus beles choses qui soient mere li avoit mult de foiz dit qe Diex estoit la Fors Diex qui est plus biax que tuit.» plus belle chose du monde et li angre (v. 142-45) autresint. (§52, 19-23) and Maintenant vers terre se lance Por ce se lesse il maintenant cheoir a terre et Et dit trestoute sa creance dit ces oroisons et ses priers telles com il les Et oroisons que il savoit, savoit. (§52, 23-24) Que sa mere apris li avoit. (v. 155-58) Perceval’s explanation that he was praying because he mistook Agloval for God provokes the comment «Tu n’es gaires plus sage qe beste» (§53, 2-3), echoing the comments of the other knights in Chrétien: . . . Galois sont tot par nature Plus fol que bestes en pasture. (v. 243-44). Perceval’s questions of the knight are virtually identical in both texts: «N’iestes vos Diex? » (Chrétien, v. 174)/ «Estez vous Diex ou angre? » (Tristan, §52, 33-34) and «Qui estes dont? » (Chrétien v. 175)/ «qe estes vos dont? » (Tristan, §53, 5), and his reaction upon learning that the man is a knight is presented in similar terms: «Ainc mais chevalier ne connui, «Ja Diex ne m’aïst se oucquez mes vi chevalier Fait li vallés, ne nul n’en vi ne parler n’en oï. Et puis qe chevalier sont si N’onques mais parler n’en oï, bel, je ne leroie por riens du monde, se je Mais vous estes plus biax que Diex chevalier pooie ester, qe je ne le fusse, car Ausi luisanz et ausi fais.» chevalier est tote la plus belle chose qe je (v. 176-81) oucquez veïsse.» (§53, 6-10) The Tristan continues, as does Chrétien, with Perceval’s interest in the knight’s armour. The knight’s explanation of the hauberk and Perceval’s reaction are the same, again couched in similar terms: 75 18 Busby (ed.) 1993. 19 Menard (dir.) 1997-2003, vol. 2. Elaine Polley 76 «Se voloies a moi lancier «Il me sert de tant, fet Agloval, qe ce tu me Gavelot ou saite traire, lançoiez orendroit toz tes javeloz au plus fort Ne me porroies nul mal faire.» qe tu porroies et tu m’ateingnoiz a chascun (v. 270-72) cop, ne me feroiz nul mal.» (§53, 14-17) and «Dans chevaliers, de tels hauberz «En non Dieu, fet Perceval, puis qe haubert Gart Diex les bisses et les cers, est si durs, je ne voudroie pas qe les biches ne Que nule ocirre n’en porroie» sers de ceste plaigne en fussent garniz, car (v. 273-75) adonc n’en porroie je jamés nul occirre! » (§53, 17-21) The Tristan though has Perceval ask about only two pieces of armour before telling Agloval that the castle is the residence of his mother and that his name is Perceval. There is not, as in Chrétien, the comic dialogue de sourds where the knight repeats his question over and over and Perceval ignores him, fixated on every piece of armour in turn. It is by thus shortening the scene and restricting its comic force that the Tristan begins its move away from its source. After this point, it leaves Chrétien to model itself solely on the Lancelot. Before further investigation of the originality of the Tristan 1, one important issue needs to be considered: the relationship between this version of the Tristan and the Post-Vulgate Cycle.There is, of course, no complete manuscript of this cycle, just numerous fragments and the Huth Merlin of which the text itself indicates that it is the first and a considerable part of the second sections of a tripartite work. Fanni Bogdanow has carried out the monumental task of piecing together the fragments of the third part which extends from the Grail Quest to the end of the Arthurian realm 20 and which corresponds virtually word for word to the Portugese translation of a French original published by Augusto Magne in 1944 as A Demanda do Santo Graal 21 . The Post-Vulgate version of the enfances of Perceval form part of a long fragment that continues the narration of the Huth Merlin, and concerns the events of Lancelot’s madness and the subsequent quest for him by the other knights. It was edited by Bogdanow as «La Folie Lancelot» 22 . The fragment itself differs from corresponding sections of the Lancelot or the Tristan 1, yet the text of the enfances, from Agloval’s arrival at his mother’s to Perceval’s departure from Arthur’s court is identical to that of the corresponding section of Tristan 1. One must have a reasonable idea of which work has interpolated from the other, if one is to be able to conclude anything about the originality of the Tristanian enfances of Perceval. Emmanuèle Baumgartner in her work Le «Tristan en Prose». Essai d’interprétation d’un roman medieval, believes that the fragment containing the enfances of 20 Bogdanow (ed.) 1991-2001. 21 Magne (ed.) 1944. 22 Bogdanow (ed.) 1965. The Enfances of Perceval in the Prose Tristan Perceval was interpolated from the Post-Vulgate Cycle 23 and that the Post-Vulgate is the source of passages that resemble each other in both works 24 . Bogdanow, however, has always claimed that the Post-Vulgate was written after the Tristan 1, from which it borrowed heavily 25 . There are reasons for accepting the latter view, particularly for the part of the Tristan 1 that contains this episode, based on the entire character of the Post-Vulgate which overall strives to resolve the incongruities of the texts of its predecessors, explaining the unexplained, answering the unanswered, clarifying the ambiguous, filling in blanks and removing discrepancies. One such discrepancy directly involving the young Perceval that is not present in the Post-Vulgate is the eccentric scene of the three drops of blood in the snow presented in the Tristan I. After leaving Arthur’s court in quest of adventure, Perceval, as in Chrétien, returns incognito near where Arthur and the court are in residence and is lost in reverie by the sight of the three drops of blood on the white background. The purpose of the scene is to give Perceval the opportunity to avenge himself against Kay and Mordred for calumniating him, but also to humiliate and wound Gauvain, who killed his father and brothers. Not only is there no real justification for Perceval’s presence near the court, not only does the scene present Perceval as vengeful, therefore less moral perhaps than one destined to be a Grail hero, but where in Chrétien the colours of the three drops of blood in the snow remind him of the complexion of his beloved Blanchefleur, in the Tristan, Perceval has no «amie». Yet in this scene he is reminded of the beauty of Helaine sans Per, his admirer in the Prose (Didot) Perceval. Nowhere else in the Tristan is there mention of Helaine nor of Perceval’s interest in a woman. The scene appears to have been just dropped into the text. If indeed the Tristan 1 was used as a source for the Post-Vulgate, it would have been perfectly natural for the Post-Vulgate to have expurgated this scene just as it omits many other discrepancies that occur in its sources, in order to make its text a more unified, consistent whole. No version of the prose Tristan that we possess is the original version of the prose text. Of that modern critics are quite certain. But what we cannot know is exactly what this original version contained. After having stated with regard to Löseth’s hypothesis of a common source for the episodes concerning the sons of King Pellinor in the Tristan and the the Post-Vulgate cycle (then known as the pseudo-Robert de Boron cycle), without attempting to justify her point of view, Baumgartner states that: le plus simple est sans doute de supposer que l’auteur de ce cycle (de ce fragment de cycle) les a inventées à partir des données du Lancelot en prose et que l’auteur de la version V.I. du Tristan les a à son tour insérées dans son récit 26 . 77 23 Baumgartner 1975: 44 and 65. 24 Baumgartner 1975: 41-52 and 60. 25 Bogdanow 1966: 21 and Bogdanow 2002: 59. 26 Baumgartner 1975: 42. Elaine Polley 78 She later says that Il est d’autre part évident que l’auteur de la Queste dite de Robert de Boron avait à sa disposition une version du Tristan puisqu’il fait état du séjour de Tristan et d’Iseut à la Joyeuse Garde, de l’invasion de Marc au royaume de Logres, de l’amour de Palamède pour Iseut etc. 27 thus avoiding confronting her readers with the enormous question as to whether scenes proper to the prose version of the Tristan, scenes that are either absent or that differ completely from the older verse tradition, could also have been invented by the Post-Vulgate, and thus giving the original form of the prose Tristan credit that it no doubt deserves. But according to her, the Grail Quest section of the Tristan 2 interpolated from the Post-Vulgate. We can be reasonably certain that this last assertion is true, as Bogdanow, having changed her opinion, has illustrated this quite convincingly from a linguistic point of view 28 . But the pre-Quest parts of both Tristans, obviously written earlier than the sections narrating the Pentecôte du Graal and its aftermath, show no such linguistic evidence of borrowing. Indeed, Baumgartner’s justifications for her belief that the Tristan borrowed from the Post-Vulgate come for the most part from the part of the text subsequent to the voyage of the lovers to Logres 29 . Laying aside the hypothesis of Löseth, Bogdanow’s earlier stance and the ideas of Baumgartner, all of which concern the provenance of the motif of hatred between the sons of King Lot and King Pellinor, and none of which leads to a satisfying conclusion 30 , there is nothing to indicate that the part of the Tristan 1 that includes the enfances of Perceval was in any way inspired by the Post-Vulgate. If one limits one’s acceptance of the Tristan’s borrowings from the Post-Vulgate cycle to the latter part of the texts and particularly to that of the Tristan 2, what now can be said about the originality of the Tristan 1’s presentation of the young Perceval? Though we cannot know for certain how the medieval audience responded to the text, given the great popularity of Chrétien’s Perceval and of the Lancelot, we can be reasonably sure that they knew the two main sources of this part of the Tristan, or at least knew the stories. As for the modern audience, repetition of the old familiar details would surely have lulled them into a sense of security, to be brutally jarred by variations that in no way responded to their expectations. The Tristan 1, by combining Perceval’s two traditional backgrounds, yet by innovative departures from the sources, comes up with a Perceval who is new and fresh. And the innovations are surprising and striking. The foremost innovation of the Tristan 1 is that, where earlier writers present Perceval variously as the nice or the serious 31 , here, by a combination of the two 27 Baumgartner 1975: 51. 28 See Bogdanow 2000: 1-32 and Bodganow 2002: 32-68. 29 Baumgartner 1975: 41-52. 30 Baumgartner 1975: 42-44. 31 For Perceval the nice cf. Chrétien’s Le Conte du Graal; for the serious Perceval cf. the prose (Didot) Perceval, the Perlesvaus and the Lancelot. The Enfances of Perceval in the Prose Tristan sources: Chrétien and the Lancelot, Perceval is both, and with a definite period of transition from one to the other. At his first contact with chivalry in the form of his brother Agloval, he is the naïve Perceval of the earliest scenes of Chrétien, a fact that the text justifies as follows: por ce qe entre fames avoit esté norriz, et totes voies estoit il si fox et si nices qe cele meïsmes qi entr’elles le tenoient ne se fesoient se rire non de totes les choses qe il fesoit. Et sanz faille, il ne fesoit oncquez sens, mes folie tout adés (§52, 49-53). But his character undergoes a swift evolution after his first contact with chivalry. First comes a period of transition which I shall call Perceval the child, which shows him playing at being a knight by trying on his brother’s armour, then going off alone to attempt to reach Arthur’s court. But all signs of Perceval the nice as well as of Perceval the child disappear from the moment the two brothers set off together for court. Now Perceval is the serious young man as presented in the Lancelot. He undergoes no long initiation process as in Chrétien, but a short period of growing up from the comic figure into the perfect candidate for knighthood. Never before have the two Percevals been reconciled. Agloval’s stay at his mother’s marks the entire period of transition between the Perceval of Chrétien and the serious Perceval of the Lancelot. While having his mother’s teachings as his sole source of knowledge, Perceval is the nice. In contact with his brother and his mother at the same time, that is two different worlds and two sources of knowledge, Perceval is transformed from the nice to the innocent child. The transition period begins with the excitement with which he tells his mother that a knight, the most beautiful thing in the world, will be staying with them, excitement that contrasts vividly with the mother’s immeasurable grief for fear of losing her beloved son to chivalry, grief on which the Tristan insists more than either source. We see Perceval’s child-like fascination with the armour as he tries on hauberk and helmet and wields the shield and sword every day. And after he has heard Agloval’s tales of Arthur’s court and Agloval has forbidden him to go to become a knight, as opposed to the Lancelot which presents a ruse on the part of the brothers to enable Agloval to take Perceval to court for dubbing, we see him sneaking off childishly for court, with Agloval having to go to fetch him. This has obvious repercussions for the guilt theme introduced by Chrétien and continued by the prose Perceval. In the Tristan 1, then, we have a psychological realism not present in the sources, a growing-up period after which Perceval will be ready for adulthood, which for him is knighthood. Other differences between this section of the Tristan and the corresponding section of the Lancelot are Agloval’s attitude to his brother’s becoming a knight, and the reason for his mother’s death.Where Agloval in the Lancelot, as soon as he has seen his brother, expresses to his mother the intention to take Perceval to court, the Agloval of the Tristan is against the idea, in spite of having recognised Perceval’s physical attributes and the fact that he is of the optimum age to become a knight. It is Perce- 79 Elaine Polley 80 val who insists, in spite of Agloval’s attempts to dissuade him. Agloval’s concern is for the well-being of his mother and when Perceval runs away,Agloval acquiesces to her wish and brings the angry Perceval home. When the brothers leave for court together, it is because Agloval is unable to bear more of his mother’s grief. Perceval goes with him. Nowhere is there mention of complicity between the brothers. This brings us to the circumstances of the mother’s death. Where in the Perceval and the Lancelot, Perceval causes her death by his heartless departure, in the Tristan, it is joy at seeing her beloved son return that causes her demise. The mother’s fragile emotional constitution is carefully built up to prepare for this from very beginning of the episode: having lost her husband and sons, she is «si triste et si dolente totes voies qu’elle oncquez ne se confortait» (§51, 7-8), to the point that she «vouxist bien chascun jor morir .C. foiz, se tant de foiz peüst morir» (§51, 13-14); she faints with joy upon learning Agloval’s identity, then begs him to give her back his dead brothers whom she laments piteously; and when Perceval leaves alone for court, she faints again, threatening to kill herself, beating her breast and scratching her face and acting like a woman demented until Agloval promises to bring him back. Her death upon seeing her son return is the final proof of her lack of emotional mesure: Quant ce fu chose qe elle vit Perceval revenu devant le, elle s’escrie a haute voiz ainssi com fame tote desesperee: «Ha! Mort, haste toi de venir! Je ne quier plus vivre, puis qe je voi mon enfant devant moi! » Lors li cort les bras tenduz, et le baise plus de .C. foiz sanz dire mot et l’enbrace parmi les flans et l’estraint si durement encontre son piz qu’elle se desront tote et li cuers li part el ventre, si chiet arriere tote enverse. (§60, 3-11). The Tristan 1, by not putting the blame on Perceval for her death does not accord him the burden of guilt that Chrétien has Perceval carry, guilt that according to his uncle the hermit prevents him from asking the questions that will heal the Fisher king and by implication access the Grail. In the Lancelot, though his guilt in this respect is not of thematic significance, Perceval nonetheless is responsible for his mother’s death. The Tristan, then makes him an even more perfect candidate for a Grail hero than does the Lancelot. Having added significantly to the scenes at the mother’s house, the Tristan 1 now removes a large section of the Lancelot story, taking Agloval and Perceval directly to court. By laying aside the episode concerning the killing of Agloval’s squire, it keeps Perceval at centre stage until he leaves court, thus making its Perceval episode an uninterrupted unit. After the arrival of the brothers at court, the narration continues the framework of the Lancelot, but again adds to it. From the moment Perceval is noticed by Arthur, more emphasis is given to his qualities and especially to his lineage. This is evident in the king’s reaction upon learning Perceval’s identity: «Or le face Diex preudome, fet li rois, car certes il est biax enfes, et bien resemble au haut lignage dont il est estréz, et plus a Lamorat qe a nul autre. Se il fesoit autant a loer de chevalerie conme fist ses freres, mult l’avroit Diez fet graciex.» (§60, 34-38); The Enfances of Perceval in the Prose Tristan and in the reaction of the barons during the knighting: Et sachiéz qe, quant li baron de leanz qi son pere avoient connu et Lamorat autresi virent cestui si bel et si avenant com il estoit, il ne se porent tenir qe li plusors ne plorassent por la pitié qu’il avoient, car il avoient tant prisié de totes bonté et Lamorat et le roi Pellynor qu’il avoient grant duel de lor mort totes les foiz qu’i lor en souvenoit. Por se il ot il mainte lerme ploree et des privéz et des estranges par leanz le jor qe Perceval fust fet chevalier. (§61, 3-11) At the same time, the barons’ fond memories of Perceval’s brother Lamorat and father Pellinor introduces to the episode the theme of family vengeance, a theme particular to the Tristan and the Post-Vulgate cycle. The theme continues with Gaheriet’s opinion of Perceval’s ability to avenge the deaths of his father and brothers and with Gauvain’s anger at his words: «Je vos di, fet Gaheriet, qe il ne puet faillir qe il ne soit preudome durement. Et, se Diex me conseult, je croi qe il sera de si grant bonté qe bien sera encore vengee par sa main solement la mort de son pere et de Lamorat et de Drian, qe nostre paranté - ne sai les qiex - ocistrent asséz desloiaument, se vont disant aucunez genz. Il firent vilté et mauvestié, maldit soient il et honi, et si seront il encore, se Diex plest! Et certes, il deservirent bien quant il mistrent a mort Lamorat, qi estoit le meillor chevalier du monde et le plus loiax qe je oucquez trovasse». Quant misere Gauvain entent ceste parole, il mue tot d’ire et de mautalent ne ne respont mie tot ce qe il pense. Gaheriet ne s’en prent garde, ainz parole totes voies de Perceval et dit qe Diex le face si bon chevalier com il est bel: adont porroit il venger bien Lamorat de ses annemis et metre a honte et a dolor toz celx qi desloialment l’ocistrent. (§61, 18-35) and is emphasised in the epilogue to the episode of the three drops in the snow where, after a maiden announces to Arthur that Perceval was the knight who unhorsed Kay and Mordret and who wounded Gauvain, and after Arthur warns that Perceval will take vengeance on whoever killed his brothers, Gauvain, Agravain and Mordret decide to kill Perceval before he can do them any harm. Apart from these differences, the feast after the dubbing, the miracle of speech accorded to the mute damsel who seats Perceval at the Round Table, the damsel’s death, the mockeries of Kay and Mordred repeated to Perceval by a fool and Perceval’s subsequent departure in search of Lancelot proceed without great change from the Vulgate text. There, of course, is no further trace of the return to Chrétien found exclusively in the earliest part of the enfances. The only other elements of great significance added by the Tristan are the appearance of Perceval’s name on his seat, the damsel’s emphasis on God’s according Perceval the seat next to the Perilous Seat because he is «digne d’estre un des plus souverainz chevaliers de la queste du Saint Graal» (§63, 23-24), and finally the knights’ advice to the king not to let Perceval depart from court before the Grail quest for fear he will die by misadventure. Upon Perceval’s departure from court, the Tristan 1 and the Lancelot diverge. Perceval’s childhood and youth are over; he is now the knight who will be second only to Galahad. This brings us to the issues and questions raised by a close study of the Perceval of the Tristan: 81 Elaine Polley 82 The Perceval of the Tristan 1, in fusing the two previous traditions, has much to recommend it as the definitive Perceval. But this was not to be. Despite being taken over by the Post-Vulgate, it was rejected by the Tristan 2 and no enfances of Perceval at all appear in the highly influential work of Malory. Why, one might ask. Why the long interpolation of the Lancelot in the Tristan 2? Can we think that the text of the Lancelot was less well known than we imagine, that whoever added the long chunk of text, in many respects clumsily, thought that the audience needed it, not only for the visits of Lancelot and Bohort to the Grail castle, but also for the other material included, including a second enfances of Perceval? Is the interpolation proof that whoever produced the Tristan 2 did not know the Tristan 1 which conserved important aspects of the Lancelot while incorporating the traditional Perceval of Chrétien? Why is just a short factual account of Perceval’s arrival at court and dubbing common to all manuscripts of the Tristan 2? The Tristan 2 contains many of the same features as the Tristan 1, most likely those of the original prose version of the Tristan story. If Perceval’s enfances actually appeared in this original version, why might the Tristan 2 have rejected them? Might the enfances, beginning with Perceval’s niceté and moving to a transitional period of childish innocence before presenting the serious adult Perceval of the Grail Quest, detract in any way from the mystique of the perfect Perceval whose role as a Grail hero is a main emphasis of the Tristan 2? They certainly prepare Perceval for his destiny in a plausible manner, especially to the modern reader for whom transition (i. e. adolescence) is seen as a key phase of human development. Michel Zink, in his article «Vieillesse de Perceval: l’ombre du temps» posits an interesting explanation for the non-existence of Perceval’s childhood in certain texts where the Grail Quest is accomplished 32 : in his opinion, it is due to the difficulty of having to present Perceval in his old age after the Grail has been found. His hypothesis also includes a possible reason that romances presenting the youthful Perceval as the traditional nice do not bring the Grail Quest to its logical end: Devant la difficulté de peindre la vieillesse immobile de cet enfant pressé les auteurs ont fait comme ils ont pu. Les uns ont renoncé à terminer l’histoire, d’autres ont dès le début dépouillé Perceval de sa jeunesse. D’autres ont cherché à entretenir le sentiment de l’écoulement du temps alors même que tout est accompli 33 . This certainly could hold true both for the Tristan 1 which relates the enfances of Perceval without bringing the Grail Quest to a logical conclusion, and for the Tristan 2 which presents no enfances and in most versions incorporates a full Grail Quest. But is the problem of making Perceval age after having presented him as the nice enough to justify not including the enfances, or, indeed, not concluding the 32 Zink 1988: 285-94. 33 Zink 1988: 285 The Enfances of Perceval in the Prose Tristan 83 Grail story? It seems unlikely in a work that wishes to tell all, by undertaking the enormous task of combining the Tristan and the Arthurian traditions. Antoinette Saly has a different explanation for the absence of Perceval’s enfances in certain Grail texts. In speaking of the Prose (Didot) Perceval, which contains nothing of Perceval the nice, she states that «La christianisation definitive du Graal a provoqué la rupture avec le vieux mythe royal des ‹Enfances› sauvages» 34 . Yet this myth is incorporated in the Tristan 1 and repeated in the Post-Vulgate Cycle. Is the fact that the Tristan 1 does not correspond to her theory the reason that Saly does not include it among her Perceval texts? True, it contains no full Grail quest, but there are enough references in the text, not least the words of the mute damsel, to indicate that Perceval will be one of the Grail heroes. The Post-Vulgate, which contains the same material on the young Perceval, includes a full quest for a christianised Grail. Is the lack of influence of the enfances of the Tristan 1, despite surviving in numerous manuscripts, as well as in the Post-Vulgate, due to the fact that these works were just too long and too late to supplant Chrétien and the Lancelot as further sources for Perceval’s background? This episode of the Tristan 1, written after the Conte du Graal and the Lancelot, is typical of a certain reaction to rewriting where the concern is to reconcile all previous traditions. It is also, like the examples cited earlier, typical of the type of rewriting that wanted to return to the doxa. Why did subsequent works not wish to continue to do likewise? How, then, can we classify this version of the Tristan within the ensemble of Perceval texts? Lacy in his Utrecht paper «Perceval from North to south», contends that in works after Chrétien and Perlesvaus . . . Perceval presented special problems for authors. That is, he was recognized as a prominent and appealing character, but a good many authors seem not to have known just what to do with him once Galahad assumed his role as chosen Grail hero 35 . Yet the Tristan 1 does seem to know what to do with him. By fusing the two Perceval traditions, it resolves the question as to what happened to the Perceval of Chrétien, a question that must have worried the audience of the Lancelot and the Prose (Didot) Perceval. In a single text Perceval is both the «naïve and unformed» individual and the «consummate knight . . . the purest man of all, save Galahad», as Groos and Lacy describe his two different careers, a combination of all he has been and will be throughout Arthurian literature 36 . The naïvety which these authors say has made Perceval «one of the most fascinating and potentially engaging of all Arthurian creations» and which is present solely in texts where he is the Grail winner is here the prelude to the spiritually perfect Grail hero of the more «chris- 34 Saly 1999: 21 35 Lacy 2005: 49. 36 Groos/ Lacy (ed.) 2002: 30. Elaine Polley 84 tianised» texts like the Lancelot, but with all flaws, moral or otherwise, expurgated. The Perceval of the Tristan 1 is certainly yet another example of what they call Perceval’s «constructability» 37 , another manifestation of what they term Perceval’s continuous ability to evolve, as opposed to other Arthurian characters set and restrained by convention 38 . It is a skilful marriage of the preceding Perceval traditions and it is highly unfortunate that, with the exception of the interpolation in the Post-Vulgate, it appears to have had no import as a source for further Perceval material. Yet even if it is problematic, it cannot be neglected as one of a number of stages in the development of Perceval as a character, one that specifically attempts to reconcile conflicts of the past. It is the last medieval text to experiment with or even to explore the possibilities of Perceval’s background, something that neither the Tristan 2 nor the work of Malory does. It is therefore a grave injustice not to study it in its own right, in spite of, but also, more interestingly, because of problems that such a study may flag up. Paris/ Zurich Elaine Polley Bibliography Primary Sources Bogdanow, F. (ed.) 1965: «La Folie Lancelot, a hitherto unidentified portion of the Suite du Merlin contained in mss B.N.fr 112 and 12599», Beih.ZRPh. 109: 82-93 Bogdanow, F. (ed.) 1991-2001: La Version post-vulgate de la Queste du Saint Graal et de La Mort Artu, Troisième partie du Roman du Graal, 3 vol., Paris Busby, K. (ed.) 1993: Chrétien de Troyes, Le Roman de Perceval ou Le Conte du Graal,Tübingen Curtis, R. L. (ed.) 1963-85: Le Roman de Tristan en prose, vol. I, Cambridge (Munich), vol. II, Cambridge (Leiden), vol. III, Cambridge Magne, A. (ed.) 1944: A Demanda do Santo Graal, 3 vol., Rio de Janeiro Ménard, P. (dir.) 1987-97: Le Roman de Tristan en prose, 9 vol.: vol. I, P. Ménard (ed.); vol. II, M.- L. Chênerie/ T. Delcourt (ed.); vol. III, G. Roussineau (ed.); vol. IV, J.-C. Faucon (ed.); vol. V, D. Lalande (ed.) with collab. of T. Delcourt; vol. VI, E. Baumgartner/ M. Szkilnik (ed.); vol. VII, D. Quéruel/ M. Santucci (ed.); vol. VIII, B. Guidot/ J. Subrenat (ed.); vol. IX, L. Harf- Lancner (ed.), Genève Ménard. P. (dir.) 1997-2003: Le Roman de Tristan en prose, 4 vol.: vol. I, J. Blanchard/ M. Quéreuil (ed.); vol. II, N. Laborderie/ T. Delcourt (ed.); vol. III, J.-P. Ponceau (ed.); vol. IV, M. Léonard/ F. Mora (ed.), Paris Micha, A. (ed.) 1978-83: Lancelot, 9 vol., Paris 37 Groos/ Lacy (ed.) 2002: 2. 38 Groos/ Lacy (ed.) 2002: 30. The Enfances of Perceval in the Prose Tristan 85 Secondary Sources Baumgartner, E. 1975: Le «Tristan en prose». Essai d’interprétation d’un roman médiéval, Genève Bogdanow, F. 1973: «The Transformation of the role of Perceval in some thirteenth century prose romances», in: W. Rothwell/ W. R. J. Barron/ D. Blamires/ L. Thorpe (ed.), Studies in Medieval Literature and Languages in Memory of Frederick Whitehead, New York Bogdanow, F. 1966: The Romance of the Grail. A Study of the Structure and Genesis of a Thirteenth-century Arthurian Prose Romance, Manchester/ New York Bogdanow, F. 2000: «Un nouvel Examen des rapports entre la Queste Post-vulgate et la Queste incorporée dans la deuxième version du Tristan en prose», Romania 126: 1-32 Bogdanow, F. 2002: «Intertextuality and the Problem of the Relationship of the First and Second Versions of the Prose Tristan to the Post-Vulgate Queste del Saint Graal», Arthuriana 12/ 2: 2-68 Combes,A. 2001: Les Voies de l’aventure. Réécriture et composition romanesque dans le Lancelot en prose, Paris Genette, G. 1982: Palimpsestes. La littérature au second degré, Paris Groos, A./ Lacy, N. J. (ed.) 2002: Perceval/ Parzival. A Casebook, New York/ London Hilka, A. 1932: «Die Jugendgeschichte Percevals im Prosa-Lancelot und im Prosa-Tristan», ZRPh. 52: 514-36 Hult, D. 2005: «From Perceval to Galahad: A Missing Link? », in: K. Busby/ B. Guidot/ L. E. Whalen (ed.), «De Sens rassis». Essays in Honor of Rupert T. Pickens, Amsterdam/ New York Lacy, N. 2002: «Perlesvaus and the Perceval Palimpsest». in: A. Groos/ N. J. Lacy (ed.), Perceval/ Parzival. A Casebook, New York/ London: 97-103 Lacy, N. 2005: «Perceval from North to South», Abstracts from the XXI st International Arthurian Congress, Utrecht, 24-31, VII: 49 Saly, A. 1999: «Les ‹Enfances Perceval›», in: A. Saly, Mythes et Dogmes. Roman arthurien. Epopée romane, Orléans: 15-29 Zink, M. 1988: «Vieillesse de Perceval: l’ombre du temps», in: J. Dufournet (dir.), Le Nombre du temps, en homage à Paul Zumthor, Paris: 285-94