There are a lot of parallelisms between the first and second half of the book. Are there any you can point out? Why do you think that some episodes mirror each other?
hint: Look at the “Games” and compare it to the “duel for the queen” episode! I am sure there are others, but just to get y’all started.
There are definitely a few instances of parallelism within the two halves of the novel. One such parallel is the condition of imprisonment with the two pivotal characters in the story. In the first half, Queen Guinevere is “securely confined” (249) within the walls of King Bademagu’s castle after being taken by Meleagant, and from this prison Lancelot must rescue her. However, in the second half of the novel, it is the other lover who is imprisoned, also by the same ruthless lord. Lancelot was locked in a tower with “no door or opening, save only a small window,” (282) and was saved, just as Guinevere was from her imprisonment. I think these episodes mirror each other to show how desperate and in love these two lovers are to get back to one another, that no distance or walls can separate them for too long. Another, smaller parallel present within the two halves of the tale are the actions of the two dwarves that Lancelot encounters on his journey. The dwarf in the first half of the book transports Lancelot in a cart, a type of imprisonment made for others to “[mock] him loudly” (212), and in the second half, another dwarf leads Lancelot to imprisonment within a tower. These cycles of imprisonment not only show the untrustworthiness of dwarves, but also the barriers (both physical and societal) that exist between the two lovers.
There are two instances in this story, one in the first half and one in the second half, where dwarves trick Lancelot into a difficult position that tests him. The first time, when a dwarf forces Lancelot to ride in the cart, the shame and stigma of that ride follow him throughout his entire quest to save the queen, and his involvement with the cart even causes his queen to spurn him at first. Then, a dwarf deceives him and leads him away to be kidnapped by Meleagant. His subsequent imprisonment is more trying than any of the battles and injuries he has experienced which should have killed him; he cries out and his voice “longed for death; in its suffering it asked only to die; life and its own body no longer held any value for it” [286]. He has clearly suffered more than he believes he can handle. While the first instance with a dwarf did test his Love for his queen, this last instance pushed him to his limits. Lancelot is portrayed as unshakeable, but in his imprisonment we see a more human side of him, one that, even for just a moment, admits true weakness.
In this story, Lancelot beheads two men: one in the first half and one in the second. The first man whom Lancelot beheads is accused of being “a faithless being” and therefore it is acceptable for Lancelot to kill him in accordance with the rules of chivalry (242). The woman who accuses him of this and demands his head is later revealed to be the sister of Meleagant. When she overhears that Meleagant has taken Lancelot captive, she rescues him, as she promised after Lancelot beheaded the proud knight: “You will be repaid at a time when you most need it” (243). This rescue allows Lancelot to return to Arthur’s court and fight Meleagant, an encounter which ultimately results in Lancelot beheading him. This sense of circularity creates a satisfying ending for the story. The knight who is initially beheaded is too proud, and this too is Meleagant’s fatal flaw. In showing what happens to the first proud knight, the story foreshadows Meleagant’s end.
After re reading these in preparation for the midterm, another parallel struck me in regards to the two men Lancelot beheaded, as discussed in Victoria’s comment. In both cases, the men are counseled by their wise and honorable fathers to not engage in physical combat with Lancelot and allow the knight to take either the maiden (who we later learn is Maleagant’s sister) or the queen away without challenge. In both cases, the sons refuse to listen to their fathers’ wise counsel and go explicitly against their respective wishes. In both cases, the fathers lament their sons’ foolhardiness and condemn their actions. I think this adds a second moral to the story — that, besides committing the sin of pride, these foolish men also commit the sin of disobeying / not honouring their fathers’ wishes.