Title: The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac - Studies upon its Origin, Development, and Position in the - Arthurian Romantic Cycle
Author: Weston, Jessie L.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac - Studies upon its Origin, Development, and Position in the - Arthurian Romantic Cycle" ***


  =Grimm Library=

  No. 12

  THE LEGEND OF SIR LANCELOT DU LAC



  =The Grimm Library.=


 I. GEORGIAN FOLK-TALES. Translated by MARJORY WARDROP. _Cr._ _8vo_,
 _pp._ xii+175. 5_s._ _net_.

 II., III., V. THE LEGEND OF PERSEUS. By EDWIN SIDNEY HARTLAND, F.S.A. 3
 vols. £1, 7_s._ 6_d._ _net_.

    VOL. I. THE SUPERNATURAL BIRTH. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xxxiv+228
    (_not sold separately_).

    VOL. II. THE LIFE-TOKEN. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ viii+445. 12_s._
    6_d._ _net_.

    VOL. III. ANDROMEDA. MEDUSA. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xxxvii+225.
    7_s._ 6_d._ _net_.

 IV., VI. THE VOYAGE OF BRAN, SON OF FEBAL. An Eighth-century Irish
 Saga, now first edited and translated by KUNO MEYER.

    VOL. I. With an Essay upon the Happy Otherworld in Irish Myth, by
    ALFRED NUTT. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xvii+331. 10_s._ 6_d._ _net_.

    VOL. II. With an Essay on the Celtic Doctrine of Rebirth, by ALFRED
    NUTT. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xii+352. 10_s._ 6_d._ _net_.

 VII. THE LEGEND OF SIR GAWAIN. Studies upon its Original Scope and
 Significance. By Jessie L. Weston, translator of Wolfram von
 Eschenbach's 'Parzival.' _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xiv+111. 4_s._ _net_.

 VIII. THE CUCHULLIN SAGA IN IRISH LITERATURE. Being a Collection of
 Stories relating to the Hero Cuchullin, translated from the Irish by
 various Scholars. Compiled and Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by
 ELEANOR HULL. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ lxxix+316. 7_s._ 6_d._ _net_.

 IX., X. THE PRE-AND PROTO-HISTORIC FINNS, both Eastern and Western,
 with the Magic Songs of the West Finns. By the Hon. JOHN
 ABERCROMBY. Vol. I., _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xxiv+363. Vol.
 II., _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xiii+400. £1, 1_s._ _net_.

 XI. THE HOME OF THE EDDIC POEMS. With Especial Reference to the
 'Helgi Lays,' by SOPHUS BUGGE, Professor in the University
 of Christiania. Revised Edition, with a new Introduction concerning
 Old Norse Mythology, by the Author, translated from the Norwegian by
 WILLIAM HENRY SCHOFIELD, Instructor in Harvard University.
 _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ lxxix+408. 12_s._ _net_.

  _All rights reserved_



  The Legend of
  Sir Lancelot du Lac

  Studies upon its Origin, Development,
  and Position in the Arthurian
  Romantic Cycle

  By
  Jessie L. Weston

  London
  Published by David Nutt
  At the Sign of the Phoenix
  Long Acre
  1901



  Edinburgh: T. and A. CONSTABLE, (late) Printers to Her Majesty



PREFACE


The Studies contained in the following pages were, in the first
instance, undertaken some four or five years ago. From time to time the
exigencies of other literary work have compelled me to lay them aside,
but the subject has never been lost sight of, and, not infrequently,
studies in appearance wholly unconnected with the _Lancelot_ legend
have thrown an unexpected and welcome light on certain points of the
story. Undertaken, in the first instance, with an absolutely open mind
(even after I had been working at it for two or three years I should
have been sorely at a loss if asked to state a theory of the origin
of the story), it was only by slow degrees that the real bearing of
the evidence became clear, and I felt that I had at last grasped a
guiding thread through the perplexing maze. The results, which perhaps
to some readers may appear startlingly subversive of opinions formally
expressed by certain distinguished scholars, were wholly unforeseen.
They are the outcome of genuine study of original texts; whether, in
the long-run they be, or be not generally accepted, I would at least
plead that they be judged _on the evidence of those texts_.

In certain cases I have little doubt as to the verdict. So far as the
evidence concerning the sources of Malory, and the differing versions
of the prose _Lancelot_, is concerned, the facts, now brought forward
for the first time, are beyond dispute. They may, I hope they will, be
hereafter added to, and confirmed. As they stand they encourage us to
hope that further study of the material already available may yield
welcome, and perhaps unsuspected results.

We are, so far, only on the threshold of a satisfactory and scientific
criticism of the Arthurian cycle, and I doubt whether all who are
engaged in this study recognise sufficiently either the extent and
complexity of the questions involved, or the absolute futility of,
at this early stage, enunciating dogmatic decisions on any of the
various points at issue. Is there any one living scholar who is
perfectly aware of _all_ the evidence at our disposal for any of the
great stories of the cycle? If there be, he will know, better than any
other, that till critical editions place us in a position to determine
the characteristic readings of the MSS. representing not one
alone, but _all_ those stories, their inter-relation, their points of
contact with, and variance from each other, the very best work that can
be done will be liable to bear the impress of a temporary character--it
will not, it cannot be, final.

Elsewhere, I have urged that this fact be recognised and acted upon,
and I cannot but hope that the evidence collected in these studies may
help to convince others of the real necessity for a determined effort
to edit and render accessible the principal Arthurian texts, and the
certain and permanent profit likely to result from such a work.

  BOURNEMOUTH, _February 1901_.


CONTENTS



   CHAPTER I
                                                                 PAGE
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS                                             1-4

 Lancelot not a character of primitive Arthurian tradition          4

 First recorded mention by Chrétien de Troyes and sudden
 growth in popularity                                             5-7


   CHAPTER II

   THE 'LANZELET' OF ULRICH VON ZATZIKHOVEN

 Lancelot--Theories as to origin of name--M. de la Villemarqué--
 Professor Rhys--M. Gaston Paris--Professor Zimmer--Professor
 Foerster--Proposed Celtic derivation unsatisfactory             8-10

 Summary of poem                                                11-17

 Discussion of poem--Contradictory character of contents; not
 necessarily proof of late origin                               18-21

 Process of evolution sketched                                  23-25

 Connection between _Lanzelet_ and _Parzival_ of Wolfram von
 Eschenbach--Not merely a superficial borrowing of names--
 Necessity for critical edition of the _Lanzelet_, and careful
 comparison of the two poems                                    25-29


   CHAPTER III

   LANCELOT ET LE CERF AU PIED BLANC

 Summary of poem                                                30-32

 _Lai de Tyolet_--Older variant, but real nature of story
 even then obscured                                             32-34

 'False Claimant' _motif_ foreign to original _Lai_             34-35

 Influence of _Tristan_ noticeable in the _Morien_ variant--
 Possible connection with _Lai_                                 35-38

 Reasons for omission of adventure in later versions            38-39


   CHAPTER IV

   LE CHEVALIER DE LA CHARRETTE

 Summary of poem                                                40-42

 Structure of poem confused and unsatisfactory--Probable
 reasons for this                                               42-46

 Versions of Guinevere's imprisonment--Comparison with
 Siegfried-Brynhild story--Legend primitive and in earliest
 form unlocalised--Localisation points to an insular
 redaction                                                      46-49

 Relation between Chrétien's poem and other versions--Malory's
 version cannot be proved to be drawn from prose _Lancelot_--
 _Iwein_ certainly independent of _Charrette_--_Parzival_
 doubtful--Two latter possibly represent earlier version,
 imperfectly known by Chrétien                                  49-53


   CHAPTER V

   THE POSITION OF CHRÉTIEN DE TROYES IN THE
   ARTHURIAN CYCLE

 Source of Chrétien's poems an important problem                   54

 Professor Foerster's views summarised--The Arthurian legend
 partly historic, partly romantic--Latter of exclusively
 continental origin                                             55-56

 Reply to Professor Foerster--Arthurian tradition of greater
 extent and of wider diffusion than supposed--Evidence for
 early diffusion of _romantic_ tradition                           56

 Necessity of distinguishing between _mythic_ and _romantic_
 tradition--Former of strongly marked Celtic-Irish character,
 and mainly preserved in _insular_ tradition                    56-61

 Condition of Arthurian tradition when Chrétien wrote--No
 longer purely oral--Necessity for understanding what is
 involved in oral transmission--Mr. Hartland's evidence
 on this point--The Breton _lais_ folk-lore in character--
 Gradual process of Arthurisation--Evidence of _Yvain_--
 The process well advanced at the time Chrétien wrote           61-68

 Necessity for determining original character of story before
 criticising, _i.e._ tales of folk-lore origin demand a different
 method of criticism from that applicable to tales of purely
 literary invention--Professor Foerster's theory of origin of
 _Yvain_ examined and rejected as not consonant with archaic
 character of tale                                              68-77

 Proposed origin of _Perceval_ also unsatisfactory, not in
 harmony with statements made elsewhere by Chrétien--Strong
 probability that the tale, in its completed form, is older
 than has hitherto been supposed                                78-80

 Folk-lore character of _Erec_, _Yvain_, and _Perceval_ probably
 an important element in their popularity                          81

 The varying geography of Chrétien's poems evidence of varying
 source                                                         82-83

 Probable relation between Chrétien's poems and the Welsh
 versions--Resemblance does not necessarily postulate dependence   85

 General summary of principles resulting from present
 investigation, and their bearing upon position ultimately to
 be assigned to Chrétien                                        86-88


   CHAPTER VI

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

 Necessity of examining _all_ the existing MSS. before a critical
 study of the legend can be attempted--Present studies concerned
 only with leading points of story, and certain
 variants in printed texts                                      89-90

 Arthurian cycle in present form redacted under influence of
 completed _Lancelot_ story                                     91-93

 _Enfances_ of hero in prose _Lancelot_ a modified form of
 story related by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven--Points of contact
 between prose _Lancelot_ and _Parzival_ of Wolfram von
 Eschenbach                                                     93-96

 MS. evidence of contact with _Perceval_ story                  96-97

 Parallel with _Bel Inconnu_ poems--The _Lancelot_ later than
 either _Perceval_ or _Bel Inconnu_--Connection with Lady of
 the Lake alone of the essence of the story--Necessity for
 studying character of fairy protectress before deciding
 original form of _Enfances_                                    97-99


   CHAPTER VII

   THE PROSE LANCELOT--THE LOVES OF LANCELOT
   AND GUINEVERE

 Short notice of incidents of frequent repetition in the
 romance--Impossibility of deciding, with our present
 knowledge, which belong to original redaction                100-103

 Do the mutual relations of Lancelot and Guinevere represent an
 original feature of the Arthurian story, or are we to consider
 them a later addition?                                           103

 Early evidence of Guinevere's infidelity--Testimony of the
 chroniclers--Wace--Layamon                                   104-107

 Mordred not the original lover, but his representative       107-108

 Original lover possibly Gawain                               108-111

 Lancelot story a later development and independent of
 earlier tradition--Influence of the _Tristan_ legend--
 Motive determining choice of lover                           111-117

 Suggested evolution of Lancelot--Guinevere story             117-118


   CHAPTER VIII

   THE PROSE LANCELOT--LANCELOT AND THE GRAIL

 Intricacy of questions involved--Grail problem, so far, has
 not been solved--Possibility that mutual relation between
 _Lancelot_ and _Grail_ romances may yield us the key to
 both problems                                                119-120

 Necessity of distinguishing three distinct _Questes_--Later
 Grail _Queste_ combination of _Grail_ (Perceval) and
 _Château Merveil_ (Gawain) adventures                            121

 Dr. Wechssler's theory of _Grail-Lancelot_ cycle examined--
 Results as deduced by author unsatisfactory                  121-124

 Evidence of MS. 751 key to truth--Original Borron _Queste_ a
 Perceval, not a Galahad, _Queste_--Didot _Perceval_
 represents an early, _Perceval li Gallois_ a later, form
 of Perceval-Lancelot--Grail _Queste_ evidence for this
 discussed                                                    124-132

 Origin of the Galahad _Queste_--Dependent upon the _Lancelot_,
 but by another hand--Contradiction between presentment
 of characters and essential _motif_ of story                 133-140

 Motives determining evolution of Galahad _Queste_--Necessity of
 connecting two main branches of tradition, _Lancelot_ and
 the _Grail_--This only possible under certain conditions
 which we find fulfilled in the _Queste_                      140-146


   CHAPTER IX

   THE DUTCH LANCELOT

 Importance of this text as a faithful translation of an
 excellent original                                           147-149

 Contents summarised                                          149-151

 Close connection with edition 1533, Philippe Lenoire--Importance
 of these two versions for criticism of Malory's compilation      151

 Detailed comparison of texts with Dr. Sommer's summary of
 prose _Lancelot_ and with original text of Malory            152-164


   CHAPTER X

   THE QUESTE VERSIONS

 Comparison of texts continued--Dutch _Lancelot_--French
 1533--Malory--Welsh _Queste_--Dr. Furnivall's _Queste_--Dr.
 Sommer's summary                                             166-185

 Conclusion--General agreement of the first four against the
 last two--The former representing a superior family of
 texts--Malory's source an _Agravain-Queste_ MS. belonging to
 same family as 1533 and Dutch translation--No proof that
 Malory knew earlier section of _Lancelot_                    185-188

 Variations of _Queste_ MSS. apparently due to copyist rather
 than to compiler--The romance a _Lancelot_, rather than a
 _Grail_, romance                                             188-193


   CHAPTER XI

   THE MORT ARTUR

 Comparison of texts continued                                195-205

 Results confirm previous conclusion, showing continued
 agreement of 1533 and Dutch translation, and strengthen
 theory that text used by Malory belonged to same family          205


   CHAPTER XII

   CONCLUSION

 Summary of investigation--Results arrived at                 206-212

 The mutual relations of _Perceval_ and _Lancelot_ stories
 of primary importance in evolution of Arthurian romantic
 cycle--Necessity for critical editions of these texts        212-214


   APPENDIX

 The _Lancelot_ section of D.L.                               215-247

   INDEX                                                          248



THE LEGEND OF SIR LANCELOT DU LAC



CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY


To the great majority of English readers, those who are familiar with
the Arthurian legend through the pages of Malory and Tennyson, the name
which occurs most readily to their minds in connection with the court
and Table of King Arthur is that of Lancelot du Lac, at once the most
gallant servant of the king, and the secret lover of the queen. To many
the story of Lancelot and Guinevere is the most famous of all stories
of unlawful love.

True, of late years the popularity of Wagner's music has made their
ears, at least, familiar with the names of Tristan and Iseult. Still,
that Tristan and Iseult were ever as famous as Lancelot and Guinevere,
few outside the ranks of professed students of mediæval literature
would believe; still fewer admit that the loves of Arthur's queen and
Arthur's knight were suggested by, if not imitated from, the older,
more poetic, and infinitely more convincing, Celtic love-tale; that
Lancelot, as Arthur's knight and Guinevere's lover, is a comparatively
late addition to the Arthurian legend.

Yet so it is. I doubt if any scholar of standing would now argue that
Lancelot and his relation to the queen formed an integral portion of
the early tradition; if any, conversant with the literature of the
cycle, would reckon Lancelot among the original band of heroes who
gathered round the British king.

In the introduction to my studies on the Gawain legend, I remarked
that, if we desired to arrive at an elucidation of the Arthurian
problem as a whole, we must first begin with the elucidation of its
component parts--we must severally disentangle the legends connected
with the leading knights of the cycle before we can hope to understand
the growth and development of that cycle. When we have arrived at some
clear idea concerning the stories originally told of the Arthurian
heroes, and their relation to each other and to the king, we shall
then be in a better position to judge of the nature of the original
legend--whether it be mainly the product of literary invention, or in
its more important features, the work of mythical tradition. It is
not a matter of slight importance to ascertain to which of these two
categories the leading heroes of Arthurian romance belong.

In the case of Sir Gawain we were able to detect certain features
which, by their persistent recurrence in the great mass of tradition
connected with this knight, seemed to indicate a general recognition on
the part of the romance writers that they belonged to an early form of
his story, and as such were to be preserved even when but incompletely
understood. Further I pointed out the parallels existing between
certain of his most famous adventures and those recorded in early Irish
tradition, parallels which went far to prove, not merely the antiquity
of the feats ascribed to him, but their source in Celtic myth.

In the following studies I shall endeavour, in the same way, to trace
to its origin the legend of Lancelot du Lac, to discover what was the
tale originally connected with him, and, if possible, follow the steps
which led to the immense development of his popularity. I do not for a
moment suggest, any more than in the case of Gawain, the finality of
the results arrived at; but I hope at least to present the reader with
a sorely needed summary of the Lancelot legend, and to clear the ground
for further researches into his story.

In some ways the task before us is less difficult than that involved
in the examination of the Gawain legend; the literature connected with
Lancelot, if extensive, is not diffuse; by far the greater portion is
covered by the prose _Lancelot_ and the Grail Romances. On the other
hand the story, as compared with that of Gawain, is extraordinarily
deficient in characteristic features. The adventures ascribed to
Lancelot might just as well be placed to the credit of any other
knight: they are the ordinary stock-in-trade of the mediæval romancer.
Guinevere's lover he is, but the love-story is of the most conventional
character: the more it is studied the more clearly do the records
in which it is shrined appear the offspring of conscious literary
invention, and that invention of by no means a high order. He is
certainly no hero of prehistoric myth, solar or otherwise, as Gawain or
Perceval may well be; nor does he by force of sheer humanity lay hold
on our imagination, as does Tristan.

How then did Lancelot come into the Arthurian cycle? In the earliest
records of Arthurian legend he holds no place. Wace's _Brut_, the
French metrical version of the History of Geoffrey of Monmouth, written
about the middle of the twelfth century, gives the names of certain
of Arthur's knights, Gawain, Kay, Bedivere, Iwein, but never mentions
Lancelot. We have an account of Arthur's expedition to France, in the
course of which he slew Frollo outside the walls of Paris, an adventure
which the compiler of the Prose _Lancelot_ places during the war
against Claudas to recover Lancelot's patrimony, but in the _Brut_ this
expedition takes place at an early stage in Arthur's reign, and knows
nothing of Lancelot or Claudas.[1]

Dating apparently from the same period, the middle of the twelfth
century, is a bas-relief of the cathedral of Modena, representing a
female figure standing on the summit of a tower, towards which several
armed knights are approaching. Each knight is named, and we find
represented Arthur himself, Gawain, Kay, Ider, Carados, and a certain
Galuariun, who has not been identified. Lancelot is not among them.[2]

The Welsh Arthurian stories again know nothing of Lancelot, though
certain of them contain long lists of heroes of Arthur's court.[3]

So far as we can at present tell, the earliest mention of the knight is
that contained in the _Erec_ of Chrétien de Troyes, where in a long
list of the heroes of the Round Table, ranged according to merit (at
least in the case of the earlier names), Lanceloz del Lac is reckoned
third, the first two being Gawain and Erec.[4] In the German version by
Hartmann von Aue, he occupies the same place, but is called Lanzelot
von Arlac. Nothing more is related of him: he plays no rôle in the
story, he is a name, and nought else. In a later poem by Chrétien,
_Cligés_, the same position, third on the roll of heroes, is ascribed
to Lancelot, but here it is Perceval, and not Erec, who ranks second.
The hero of the poem, Cligés, appears at a tournament four successive
days, in different armour, and overthrows Segramor, Lancelot, and
Perceval, finally fighting an undecided combat with Gawain.[5] The
_Cligés_ reference is particularly noticeable, as the _motif_ of the
story is the love of the hero for the young wife of his uncle and
sovereign. In this connection the loves of Tristan and Iseult are often
referred to, but Lancelot and Guinevere never. It seems clear that
when Chrétien wrote this poem he did not know Lancelot as the lover of
Arthur's queen and the chief of Arthur's knights.

But in the poem which followed the _Cligés_, _Le Chevalier de la
Charrette_, Lancelot suddenly appears in both these characters,
Gawain's superior and the lover of Guinevere: no explanation of the
changed position is offered, but Chrétien takes for granted the
familiarity of his audience with the relations between the knight
and the queen. To add to the confusion, in the succeeding poem _Le
Chevalier au Lion_, Lancelot is only once referred to, in connection
with the _Charrette_ adventure, and is never mentioned as one of
the knights of Arthurs household; while in Chrétien's last poem, the
_Perceval_, he is altogether ignored.[6]

It is very difficult, indeed impossible, to date Chrétien's poems
with exactness. The only two which afford clear internal evidence on
the point, _Le Chevalier de la Charrette_ and _Le Chevalier au Lion_,
fall within the years 1164-1173. _Erec_ was the first of his Arthurian
poems, and between _Erec_ and the _Charrette_, certainly one work,
_Cligés_, and it may be several, intervened.[7]

Very probably the _Erec_ was written early in the decade, 1150-60,
and taken in conjunction with the negative evidence afforded by the
_Brut_ and the Italian bas-relief, it goes to prove that whereas the
name of Gawain, as connected with Arthur, was known by the end of the
eleventh century,[8] Arthurian tradition knew nothing of Lancelot till
the latter half of the twelfth; and that no mention of his relations
with Guinevere is found till between 1160-1170, that is, a decade after
the first mention of his name. It is, of course, a well-recognised
fact in the study of romance, that the date of a manuscript does not
fix the date of the story contained in it; a younger manuscript may
contain the same story under an older form. As a rule, the versions
contained in Chrétien's poems appear to present a fairly old form of
the stories they relate, saving in the case of Lancelot. About this
knight, Chrétien either knows nothing or he knows too much. The earlier
stages of his story he leaves unrecorded; yet an allusion in the
_Charrette_ poem[9] shows that he was not unacquainted with the legend
concerning his youth and upbringing. Two versions of this legend have
been preserved to us, one in verse and one in prose. In the following
chapter we will examine the older of these versions, and inquire into
the origin of our hero's name.



CHAPTER II

THE 'LANZELET' OF ULRICH VON ZATZIKHOVEN


The origin of the name _Lancelot_ has been a subject of considerable
debate among scholars, and has given rise to the most widely differing
explanations. M. de la Villemarqué, who was a warm advocate of the
Welsh origin of the Arthurian stories, derived the name from the French
_l'ancelot_, a youth or servant, which he held to be a translation of
the Welsh Melwas, or Maelwas. This solution was rejected by M. Gaston
Paris, in his study on the Lancelot poems,[10] in which he showed
that _ancelot_ was not a French common name, and that Maelwas did not
bear the signification attributed to it. Professor Rhys,[11] adopting
the theory of the Welsh origin of the name, which in its present form
he admitted only exists in Welsh literature as borrowed from French
or English sources, decided that it represented a Welsh variant of
Peredur, the root of this latter name being _Pâr_=_a spear or lance_.
'The characters,' says Professor Rhys, 'were originally the same,
though their respective developments eventually differed very widely.'
I doubt if this solution ever found any adherents except its author:
it is sufficient to remark that the derivation of Peredur, on which
it rests, is by no means universally accepted, and that Lancelot is in
no special way connected with a spear or lance.[12] It is certainly
true that the Lancelot story shows signs of having been affected by the
Perceval legend, but as we shall see the borrowings are restricted to
one special and purely continental form of the story.

M. Gaston Paris, in the study referred to above, suggested that
Lancelot might be either a Celtic name altered, or, more probably, the
substitution, by French poets, of a name of Germanic origin for one
of Breton form strange to the ears of their French audiences, _e.g._
it might be a diminutive form of _Lanzo_. This is also the conclusion
of Professor Zimmer.[13] The prefix _Lant_ is often found in names of
Frankish origin transferred to Breton ground: such names are Lando,
Landolin; Lanzo, Lanzolin, etc.

In the introduction to his edition of the _Charrette_, recently
published,[14] Professor Foerster announces his complete adhesion to
this view.

It certainly seems that the evidence points strongly to this
conclusion. The fact that Lancelot's name does not appear in the
earliest obtainable Arthurian documents shows that he did not
belong to the original 'stoff' of the cycle; the entire silence of
Welsh literature, and the practical silence of English vernacular
romances,[15] seem to show that he formed no part of the _insular_
Arthurian tradition. For my own part I unhesitatingly accept Professor
Foerster's dictum, '_Lancelot ist den Kymren gänzlich unbekannt, und
ist unter allen Umständen Kontinentaler[16] Herkunft_.'[17]

A weak point in the proposed Celtic solutions appears to me to be that
both entirely ignore the qualifying title _du Lac_, by which Lancelot
is invariably known. Neither M. de la Villemarqué nor Professor Rhys
appear to consider it of any special importance, yet if I mistake
not this is just the significant point of the Lancelot story, and
that which from the very outset differentiates it from the legends
connected with Peredur or Maelwas. From the moment of his appearance
in Chrétien's list of Arthur's knights to that in which the prose
_Lancelot_ records his death in the odour of sanctity, Lancelot is
Lancelot _du Lac_, and the earliest version of his story which we
possess amply justifies his claim to the title.

The poem of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven[18] is certainly later than either
the _Erec_ or the _Charrette_ of Chrétien, but the tradition it
embodies is anterior to the poem itself. Written in the opening years
of the thirteenth century, it is, as explicitly stated in the text, the
translation of '_daz welsche buoch von Lanzelete_,' brought to Germany
by Hugo de Morville, one of the hostages who in 1194 replaced Richard
of England in the prison of Leopold of Austria.[19] The date of the
original French version cannot, of course, be fixed. In any case it
must have preceded its introduction into Germany; judging from internal
evidence it represented an early and immature version of the Lancelot
legend. The story as related in the _Lanzelet_ is as follows: Lanzelet
was son to King Pant of Genewîs and his wife Clarine. By a revolt of
his people Pant was driven from his kingdom with his wife and child.
In his flight he came to a stream, and there, overcome by his wounds,
sank down and died. The queen had laid her child under a tree while she
tended her husband, and before she could reach it again a water-fairy
(_mer-feine_) came in a cloud of mist and carried off the infant. The
fairy was a queen, ruling over ten thousand maidens, who knew no man.
Her kingdom was called _Meide-lant_; there it was ever May-tide, and
her palace had such virtue that whoso abode one day within it might
never know sorrow till the day of his death. There the little Lanzelet
was brought up, in ignorance of his name and rank, till he reached
the age of fifteen, knowing nothing of knighthood, nor even how to
bestride a horse. Then eager to try his lot in the world outside he
demanded leave to ride forth. This the fairy granted, but refused to
tell him his name and parentage; he must first conquer the strongest
knight in the world, Iweret, of the fair wood Beforet.

She gave him rich armour, white as a swan, the best that might be, a
surcoat (_wafen-roc_) decked with golden bells; sword and shield, and a
goodly horse. But the lad did not know how to ride, so let the bridle
hang loose and held on by the saddle-bow. In this fashion he rode till
he met a knight, Johfrit de Liez, who rebuked him for his childish
bearing, and took him to his castle, where he was kindly welcomed by
the host's mother and her maidens, and instructed in riding and the use
of knightly weapons.

His next adventure is to ride with two knights to the castle of one
Galagandreiz. In the night the daughter of the host, condemned by her
father to perpetual virginity, offers her love to the three knights in
turn; is accepted by Lanzelet, who fights a duel with her father, slays
him, and weds the maiden. One day he rode forth seeking adventures, and
found a road which led him to the castle of Limors. The folk attacked,
and would have slain him, but for the intervention of Ade, niece to the
lord of the castle. Lanzelet is thrown into prison, and only escapes by
fighting single-handed, first with a giant, then with two lions, and
finally with the lord of the castle himself. Having slain this last, he
becomes the '_ami_' of the maiden Ade. (Whether he marries her or not
is not clearly stated. In any case we hear no more of his first wife,
the daughter of Galagandreiz.)

Meanwhile the fame of Lanzelet's exploits has penetrated to Arthur's
ears, and Gawain is sent to find the unnamed hero, and bring him to
Arthur's Court. They meet, and fight an undecided combat, terminated
by the arrival of a messenger with tidings of a tournament between
King Lot of Johenîs and Gurnemanz, _den fürsten wîs_. Lanzelet betakes
himself hither, wearing each day a different suit of armour, green, red
and white, overthrows many knights, including King Lot, whom he set
free out of friendship for Gawain, and without revealing himself, rides
away with Ade and her brother.

They come to a castle, Schâtel le Mort, the master of which, Mâbûz, is
a magician, and son to the fairy who had brought Lanzelet up. Lanzelet
rides to the castle, which has this property, that whoever crosses
its drawbridge at once loses all courage and hardihood. Lanzelet
falls under the spell, and is taken prisoner in the most ignominious
manner, much to the dismay of Ade, who rides off with her brother and
disappears from the story. The land of Mâbûz adjoins that of Iweret
of Beforet, who is in the habit of raiding his neighbour's territory.
Mâbûz, who is by nature a coward, determines that Lanzelet, whose fame
is well known to him, shall be his champion. He has him carried by his
men without the walls of the castle, when his natural courage at once
returns. He rides to a fountain, beside which hangs a brazen cymbal on
which he must strike three times with a hammer to summon his foe. In
the meantime Iblîs, the fair daughter of Iweret, has had a dream of
an unknown knight whom she meets beside the fountain; she rises early
to seek the scene of her dream, and finds the original of her vision
in Lanzelet. She beseeches him to carry her off without waiting for
the conflict, but Lanzelet refuses. Iweret arrives and a fierce fight
ensues, in which he is slain. Lanzelet weds Iblîs and becomes master of
Beforet.

A messenger now arrives from the Fairy of the Lake, revealing
Lanzelet's name and parentage (his mother, Clarine, was sister to
Arthur). The object of her theft of the child is now accomplished: she
desired to secure a champion who would free her son Mâbûz from his too
powerful enemy. Lanzelet decides to seek Gawain, whom he now knows to
be his kinsman. On their way they meet a squire who informs them that
the King Valerîn (or Falerîn, the spelling varies), has appeared at
Arthur's court and laid claim to Guinevere, on the ground that she had
been betrothed to him previous to her marriage with Arthur. If Valerîn
cannot find a champion to oppose him he will carry off the queen.
Lanzelet undertakes the combat, and defeats Valerîn.

(We must note here that Lanzelet's service to the queen is of a
_preventive_ character, _i.e._ he saves her from the possibility of
abduction, he does not rescue her after the abduction has taken place.)

Lanzelet then leaves his wife at court, and goes forth to seek the
castle of Plurîs, which he had passed on his journey from _Meide-land_
and the adventure of which he desires to test. There he is challenged
by one hundred knights, whom he successively overthrows, and weds the
queen (Ulrich says quaintly, '_ich enweiz ob erz ungerne tet, wan diu
königîn was ein schoene maget_, 5530-1). Iblîs remains at Arthur's
court, grieving for the disappearance of her husband, during whose
absence she successfully withstands the _Mantle_ test, an incident of
not infrequent occurrence in Arthurian romance.

Hearing that Lanzelet is a prisoner at Plurîs, Gawain, Karjet
(Gaheriet?), Erec, and Tristan go in search of him, and, by means of a
ruse, succeed in freeing him. The queen of Plurîs disappears from the
story.

_On their way to court they learn that, while engaged in hunting the
white stag, Guinevere has been carried off by Valerîn, and imprisoned
in a magic castle, surrounded by a dense thicket peopled with all kinds
of serpents. Tristan, 'der listige Tristan'[20] suggests that they
should seek the aid of Malduz[21] or Malduc, the magician, the Lord
of the Misty Lake (Genibeleten Se), who will enable them to penetrate
Valerîn's stronghold. Erec announces that neither he nor Gawain should
take part in the expedition as they have respectively slain Malduc's
father and brother. Arthur therefore sets forth accompanied by Karjet
(Gaheriet), Tristan and Lanzelet (this is the order), and are later
joined by Dodine le Sauvage. By the good offices of the enchanter's
daughter, to whom Arthur appeals, Malduc consents to aid them on
condition that Erec and Gawain are delivered up to him, to which these
heroes willingly consent. Malduc then, by means of spells, disperses
the serpents guarding Valerîn's castle, slays him and his men, and
wakens Guinevere from the magic slumber into which Valerîn has cast
her._

I have italicised this passage as extremely important for the criticism
of the story. It will be seen that so far from Lanzelet being the means
of Guinevere's escape, he plays practically no part in the story, all
he does is to accompany the king. The rescuer is Malduc; recourse to
him is suggested by Tristan and made possible by the self-sacrifice of
Gawain and Erec; but saving in the discussion as to whether Malduc's
terms shall or shall not be accepted, Lanzelet's name is not even
mentioned.[22]

Erec and Gawain are cast into prison by Malduc and nearly starved to
death, but are rescued by one hundred of Arthur's knights, headed by
Lanzelet and aided by a giant, Esealt der lange. They all return to
Arthur's court, where great feasts are held.

Iblîs tells her husband of a curious adventure which had befallen
one of the knights: how he had met in a forest a terrible dragon
which, speaking with a human voice, besought a kiss from the knight;
he refused and the dragon flew away lamenting. Lanzelet resolves to
test the adventure, rides to the forest, finds the dragon, and gives
the desired kiss. The monster bathes in a stream at hand, and becomes
a fair maiden, Elidiâ, daughter to the king of Thile; she has been
transformed into a dragon for transgressing the rules of _Minne_, and
condemned to remain in that form till kissed by the best knight on
earth. She remains at Arthur's court, where she is made judge of all
disputed questions relating to _Minne_.

Here the story of Lanzelet practically ends. He wins back his lands of
Genewîs without difficulty, promising to treat his subjects better than
his father did. He and Iblîs betake themselves to the heritage of the
latter, Beforet, where they receive Arthur and Guinevere with great
pomp. The poem concludes by telling us that they have four children,
three sons and one daughter, that they live to see their children's
children, and die both on the same day.

The poem of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven has scarcely received the attention
which, as a factor in the criticism of the legend, it undoubtedly
demands. The questions arising out of it are not only interesting,
but, as I shall presently show, in one instance at least, of the
very highest importance. The questions may be grouped as (_a_) those
relating to the structure and sources of the poem itself; (_b_) those
which affect its relation to the other Lancelot romances. For the
first it is obvious that we are dealing with a poem of very loose
construction; the various parts do not harmonise with each other, and
no attempt has been made to make them do so. Thus we have no fewer
than four love affairs attributed to Lanzelet, and in three out of the
four he weds the lady; yet these amours, one of which is subsequent
to his marriage with Iblîs, are dropped as of no account. Professor
Foerster[23] considers that this looseness of construction points to a
late date, and that the source of the _Lanzelet_ was a biographical
romance of the weakest order. According to Professor Foerster the
clearer the composition, the better knit the incidents, the older the
romance.

Now it seems to me that there are two orders of ill-constructed
romances, and that we shall do well to differentiate between them.
In one case we have a number of incidents of secondary character,
obviously borrowed or imitated from those occurring elsewhere, strung
together more or less cleverly on the thread of a hero's individuality.
The incidents are all to be found in other romances, and as a rule none
of them have any suggestion of Celtic or mythic origin. The literary
style is superior to the matter. Such romances are _e.g._ _Rigomer_,
_Torec_, _Le Chevalier à la Manche_. A very favourable example is
_Méraugis de Portlesguez_. These are all certainly late romances.

In the other case we have a romance even more ill-constructed, but
consisting not of incidents but of whole short tales, manifestly
independent of each other, and some of them of distinctly antique and
mythic character: the literary style is poor and the whole is less a
romance, properly speaking, than the material out of which a romance
can be evolved. This, I believe, marks an early stage of development,
and of this we have naturally but few specimens. The _Lanzelet_ is, I
believe, one.

If I mistake not, the groundwork is a series of _lais_, each complete
in itself, and having no connection with what precedes or what follows
it. It is in no real sense a biographical romance, though perhaps it
might be called a tentative effort in that direction. The _Mantle_
episode certainly formed a single _lai_; the _Fier Baiser_, now found
with other adventures, probably originally did so.[24] Certain of
the episodes, too, possess a distinctly archaic character, _e.g._ the
description of the fairy's kingdom as a isle of women where no man
penetrates, a conception much older than the _Fata Morgana_ of the
prose _Lancelot_; and the description of Guinevere's prison, the magic
slumber in a fair dwelling, _ein wünneclichez haus_, surrounded by a
dense thicket infested with serpents, is the sleeping beauty story in
its oldest 'other world' form.[25] The position of Gawain in the story
is that held by him in the earlier, pre-Lancelot romances.

I cannot accept the suggestion of a biographical _Lancelot_ from which
both the _Lanzelet_ and the _Charrette_ were drawn. If we remember
that the first mention of Lancelot in Arthurian romance can only be
traced to the second half of the twelfth century, it does not seem
probable that by 1164 (when, or about when, Chrétien wrote his poem) he
could have become the hero of a fixed biographical romance. Nor, the
_motif_ of his _liaison_ with Guinevere once introduced into the story,
is the compilation of such a version as the _Lanzelet_ subsequently
probable. Professor Foerster feels this difficulty, and suggests a
solution, which a little more consideration would have shown him to be
untenable. On page xlvi. of his introduction to the _Karrenritter_,
he says, '_wenn wirklich Kristian zuerst den Ehebruch eingeführt hat,
so ist doch die Annahme zulässig dass Verehrer Arturs und seiner Frau
diese neue ehrenrührische Erfindung zwar gekannt, aber mit Entrüstung
abgewiesen haben, um ja nicht des idealen Königs Ehrenschild zu
beschmutzen_.' But a few pages further on the writer himself refers
to the story of Guinevere and Mordred as told by Geoffrey[26] and
Wace. He must therefore be well aware that there can be no possible
question of Chrétien's having _introduced_ the _motif_ of Guinevere's
faithlessness; that is one of the oldest and most original features
of the Arthurian story. The question is _not_, 'Did the queen have a
lover?'--that was answered in the affirmative long before Chrétien's
day--but, 'When did Lancelot become her lover? Was it through the
version of the _Charrette_?' a very different matter.[27]

Taking into consideration the construction of the poem, and the
character of the contents, I think we are justified in considering the
composition of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven as a collection of _lais_ which
have not yet been worked over or taken final literary shape. When the
scattered Lancelot stories did this, it was under the influence of a
_motif_ foreign to the original legend, his love for Guinevere. How
that came to be introduced into the legend is a matter for separate
consideration, but I do not think there is room for doubt that it was
this introduction which determined the final and literary form of the
Lancelot story. All conflicting elements, such as the various love
affairs, were rejected and only the original germ retained.

And what was this germ? Authorities will no doubt differ. Some perhaps
will say it was the story of Guinevere's imprisonment and rescue, but
they must remember that in the _Lanzelet_ this is _not_ the work of
the hero. I think myself that the root of the Lancelot tale was simply
a Breton _lai_, relating the theft of a king's son by a water fairy:
this seems to be the one abiding and persistent element in the tale,
all else is uncertain and shifting. Here the hero is Arthur's nephew;
elsewhere he is but the son of an old ally; at one time his father is
a tyrant, '_chassé_' by his own people; again he is a noble king, the
victim of treachery and a foreign foe. Sometimes Lancelot's mother
lives to see him restored to his kingdom; sometimes she dies while he
is yet in the care of the fairy, and never sees her son again. He has
two cousins on the father's side, Bohort and Lionel, and a bastard
half-brother Hector; he has no relations on his father's side, but is
cousin to Gawain through his mother. He is Guinevere's lover; he is
not Guinevere's lover. He is unmarried; he is very much married--three
times at least! He has four children born in wedlock; he has but one
son, the offspring of a _liaison_. He is the most valiant knight of
Arthur's court; he is scarce worthy of mention. Among all this shifting
tangle and contradiction, there is but one thing, and one only, fixed
and certain, he is Lancelot _du Lac_. I do not see how we can avoid the
conclusion that in this record of his youth we have the one fixed point
of departure for all the subsequent unfoldings of romance.

Not that this story was always unvarying in its details, on the
contrary we find in it marked divergences. Thus in the _Lanzelet_
the motive of the theft is clear, the fairy desires a champion and
protector for her cowardly son; the motive in the prose _Lancelot_ is
not apparent; probably it was a mere capricious fancy for a beautiful
child.

And if the motive was not always clearly understood, still less so was
the character of the fairy. In fact she seems to have considerably
puzzled the mediæval romancers. In the first instance the story would
be excessively simple, she would probably be such a water-fairy as
we find in _Tidorel_, and Ulrich seems to have retained this idea
when he calls her a _Merfeine_ or _Merminne_, but as the _lai_ gained
popularity, and it became necessary to supply details as to her
kingdom, etc., it would be supplemented from other legendary sources.
Ulrich's own description, the land of ten thousand maidens where no
man penetrates, is manifestly the _Meide-land_ which in _Diu Krône_
Gawain visits, and which is universally admitted to be a remembrance
of the 'Isle of Women' of old Celtic tradition. It may have touched
the Lancelot _lai_ through the medium of the Gawain's story, but
as a 'property' of old Celtic belief it may well have been known
independently. I think it probable that this identification may explain
a very curious passage in _Diu Krône_, where Kei reproaches Lancelot
who has failed in the glove test in the following terms:

    '_er hât daz vil rehte erspeht,
    daz iz di gotinne
    verkurt an ir minne,
    diu iu zôch in dem sê_.'--ll. 24517-20.

Certain it is that while the queen of the 'Isle of Women' does not
appear to be addicted to child-stealing, she does entice, or abduct,
earthly knights to be her lovers. It is not impossible that a version
of the _Lancelot_ story, redacted by some one familiar with the real
character of the kingdom, may have represented him as the queen's
lover. It is also not impossible, were this the case, that the story of
the imprisonment of Guinevere in the other world, a story which, as we
shall presently see, must have existed at a very early date, may have
led to her being confused with the queen of that kingdom, and to the
transfer of Lancelot's affections from the one to the other.

The prose _Lancelot_ version is entirely different, and far less
archaic: there is no real lake, the appearance is but a _mirage_;
men are admitted; Lancelot has not only his cousins for companions,
but other knights as well. The lady herself is conceived of more as
a mortal versed in enchantment than as a fairy proper. In the _Suite
de Merlin_ she is identified with the Demoiselle Chaceresse, daughter
of the King of Northumberland;[28] and in both these romances, the
_Lancelot_ and the _Merlin Suite_, she is the lover and the betrayer of
Merlin. It may not be out of place to remark here that the tendency of
later romances, as exhibited in the _Suite_ and notably in Malory, is
to connect the Lady of the Lake rather with Arthur than with Lancelot.

It may be asked, how did so simple a _lai_ as we here postulate
attain so great a popularity? The incidents would be few, and the
characters at first probably anonymous.[29] Here, I think, we may
take into account a factor hitherto practically ignored, the music
of the _lais_. As we know they were intended to be sung, and each
was connected with its own melody. It would be a truism nowadays to
say that the success of a song depends less upon the words than upon
the music to which the words are set, and though less true of an age
in which the songs of the people were also its folk-tales, yet the
influence of music upon the development of popular legends is a point
we do ill to ignore. It may help us to solve certain puzzles. Certain
heroes of course represent what we may call the general stock-in-trade
of Aryan tradition: their names vary with the lands in which their
tales are told, but whether Cuchullain or Gawain, Siegfried or
Perceval, the hero represents a traditional tale which antedates any
special form of recital; such a tale would be assured of welcome, and
practically independent of musical aid. But in the case of Lancelot
we have no such prehistoric tradition, no striking parallels in early
legends. Previously unknown, he leaps into popularity, as it were, at
a bound. Even the most ardent adherent of Chrétien de Troyes cannot
appeal to the popularity of that writer to help us with a solution,
for his Lancelot poem, the _Charrette_, is but seldom referred to
in contemporary literature. Much of Lancelot's later popularity is
doubtless due to his rôle as the queen's lover; but how account for the
initial popularity which caused him to be chosen for that rôle? I can
only explain the phenomenon of a knight, whose very name is unknown
before the middle of the twelfth century, becoming before the end of
that century the leading hero of a cycle to which he was originally a
stranger, by supposing that there was some special charm in the _lai_
originally connected with him, by means of which his story took hold of
the public fancy. Had that charm been in the _lai_ itself, in word or
form, then I think it would have been preserved to us. We possess more
than one beautiful _lai_, the hero of which, originally independent
of the Arthurian cycle, became by virtue of his story admitted within
the magic precincts. Failing that, I think the charm must have lain
in the air to which it was wedded, and which so pleased the ears of
the hearers that they demanded its repetition, and lengthening, by
the addition of episodes foreign to the original tale. Thus other
_lais_, whose fate had been less happy, might for a time at least
win a spurious popularity, till the 'survival of the fittest,' which
operates in literature as elsewhere, discarded the weaker portions, and
fixed the outline of the story in the form we know. This theory may or
may not be correct, but I can suggest none other that will meet the
problems of the case; and at least it has the advantage of offering an
hypothesis which may be of use in other stories besides the one under
discussion.

But there is another point in the discussion of Ulrich's poem which
urgently demands attention. What is the connection between the
_Lanzelet_ and the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach? A connection
of some sort there is, and that a fairly close one. Take for instance
the passage describing the hero's departure from his magic home for the
world of men, a passage extending over two hundred lines (ll. 400-666).
He does not know how to sit his horse, how to hold the bridle,[30] or
use his weapons; is ignorant of his name and birth; is called _der
kindische man_ (l. 598), _der namenlôse tumbe_ (l. 2045), all features
which irresistibly recall Perceval to our mind, but are in no way
characteristic of Lancelot.[31]

The tourney at which Lancelot makes his first appearance at Arthur's
court has been undertaken between King Lot von Johenis and _Gurnemanz
den fürsten wîs_ (l. 2630). It commences with a vesper play:

    '_engegen der vespereide
    riten über jene heide,
    dort zwêne, dâ her drî_.'--ll. 2855-7.

In the _Parzival_, Book II., we read of the tourney before
Kanvoleis that it began with a vesper play:

    '_von Póytóuwe Schyolarz
    und Gurnemanz de Grâhárz,
    die tjostierten ûf dem plân.
    Sich huop diu vesperîe sân,
    hie riten sehse, dort wol drî._'--ll. 295-9.

In connection with which we may note that both Chrétien and Hartmann
von Aue spell the name of Gurnemanz with _o_, not with _u_, as does
Wolfram. Other names, some of them peculiar to Wolfram's version,
occur in the _Lanzelet_, such as Galagandreiss (Galogandres), also
found in Hartmann's _Erec_ though not in Chrétien; Iwân de Nonel, l.
2935 (_Parzival_, v. 312); Iblîs, l. 4060 (_Parzival_, xiii. 895).
Ulrich's Iblîs is connected with the cloister _jaemerlichen urbor_,
Wolfram's with _Terra de Lâbur_; Kailet, l. 6032 (_Parzival_, ii.
737); Maurîn, whose name in each case is similarly qualified, _mit den
lichten schenkeln her Maurîn_, l. 3052, _Mit den schoenen schenkeln
Maurîn_ (_Parzival_, xiii. 1069).[32] In the description of Iweret we
read, _einen wâfen roc fuort er und guldîn schellen dran er schein ein
engel niht ein man_, ll. 4428-30, which should be compared with the
description of Karnachkarnanz.

    '_den dûhte er als ein got getân:
    er'n het ê 'so lichtes niht erkant.
    úfem tówe, der wâpenroc erwant.
    mit guldîn schellen kleine_.'--_Parzival_, iii. 175 _et seq._

Now how are all these points of contact to be explained? Scholars are
agreed in placing the date of Ulrich's poem in the opening years of the
thirteenth century, therefore anterior to the _Parzival_. Did Wolfram
borrow from Ulrich? If it were a mere question of a name here and
there we might think so, but the points of contact amount to more than
this. We have the characteristics of Perceval postulated of Lancelot;
we have correspondence in details, even verbal identity; further, the
prose _Lancelot_, as we shall see, presents other points of contact
with Wolfram's poem in details where he differs notably from Chrétien.
It is not probable that Wolfram, who never alludes to any adventures
related in the _Lanzelet_, and to all appearance knows nothing of the
hero save the _Charrette_ adventure, should have borrowed from two such
widely different versions of his story. The fact that where Lancelot
appears to have borrowed from the _Perceval_ legend, the borrowed
matter is marked by characteristics special to one version of the story
is, to say the least, curious. If the _Lanzelet_ _really_ preceded the
_Parzival_--a philological question upon which I am not qualified to
pronounce an opinion--and Ulrich, as is generally supposed, closely
followed his source, only one conclusion seems possible, _i.e._ that
that source knew, and quoted, the poem of Kiot. It is significant that
in the mention of Gurnemanz he is spoken of as _den fürsten wîs_, which
shows that to the writer he was not a mere name, but a well-known
character, distinguished by the qualities which mark him in the
_Parzival_.

My own impression is, however, that Ulrich knew Wolfram's poem, or at
least part of it (between the _Lanzelet_ and the last three books of
the _Parzival_ there do not appear to be any points of contact). There
are numberless small coincidences in language and phrase, trifling
in themselves, but which as a whole seem to argue a familiarity with
the words of the _Parzival_. Such a correspondence is more likely on
the part of Ulrich than on that of Wolfram, who by his own confession
could not read or write, and must have become orally familiar with his
source. But it is quite clear that a critical comparison of the two
works is urgently needed, both in the interests of Arthurian tradition
and of German literature. The popular impression, _i.e._ that Wolfram
merely borrowed a few names from the _Lanzelet_, will not stand the
test of investigation. Two conclusions alone are open, from which we
must make our choice: either to admit the existence, beyond any doubt,
of the French poem, other than Chrétien's, which Wolfram declared to
be his source;[33] or to place the date of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven some
few years later than that usually assigned to him. We await the aid of
some one of the many competent scholars Germany possesses to solve this
puzzle for us.



CHAPTER III

LANCELOT ET LE CERF AU PIED BLANC


Before examining Chrétien's poem of the _Charrette_, which, whatever
the date of composition, belongs by the nature of its contents to the
later stages of Arthurian tradition, it will be well to direct our
attention to a short episodic poem, undoubtedly French in origin,
but, so far as we at present know, only to be found in a translation
incorporated in the vast compilation known as the Dutch _Lancelot_.[34]
The contents of the poem are as follows: A maiden arrives at Arthur's
court, attended by a brachet. She is the messenger of a queen who
demands a champion to accomplish the following feat: in her land is a
stag with one white foot, guarded by seven lions; she promises her hand
to whoever will slay the lions, and present her with the white foot of
the stag. The brachet will be guide to any knight who may undertake the
adventure. Kay announces his intention of being the first to try his
fortune, and sets out, guided by the dog. After riding some distance
he comes to a deep and swiftly flowing river, which the dog promptly
swims. Kay's courage, however, fails him at the sight of the water,
and he turns back, feigning a sudden illness, which had prevented him
from pursuing the quest. Lancelot then determines to try his fortune:
he sets out, passes the river in safety, and is attacked by the seven
lions. After a fierce conflict, in which he is desperately wounded, he
succeeds in slaying them, and secures the white foot. At this moment a
stranger knight appears, and Lancelot, exhausted by the fight, gives
him the foot, bidding him carry it to the queen, and say that the
knight who has achieved the adventure lies sorely wounded, and prays
her aid. The knight promises this, but having received the foot, deals
Lancelot a treacherous blow with his sword, and leaving him for dead
rides off to the castle, and claims the reward due to the slayer of the
lions.

The queen is much distressed, as the knight is both ugly and cowardly,
and summons her lords and vassals to ask their advice. They recommend
that the marriage be postponed for fifteen days, greatly to the
disappointment of the knight.

Meanwhile Gawain has become anxious at the non-return of Lancelot, and
sets forth to seek him. He finds him apparently dead, revives him, and
conveys him to the dwelling of a physician, whom he instructs as to the
proper treatment,[35] and then rides himself to the court to punish the
treacherous knight.

He arrives on the eve of the marriage, accuses the knight of his
treachery, challenges him to single combat and slays him. The queen
is much rejoiced at the news. Gawain brings Lancelot to the queen,
who regards him as her future husband; but, on the excuse of calling
together his kinsmen for the marriage, Lancelot contrives to leave the
country, 'not for anything in the world would he have been faithless to
Guinevere.' He and Gawain return to Arthur's court, and the queen is
left vainly awaiting her bridegroom.

This conclusion is of course obviously lame and ineffective. The hero
should wed the maiden, whose hand was the previously announced reward
of successful accomplishment of the feat. That Lancelot undertakes the
adventure at all can only be explained by supposing that the tale was
connected with him previous to his being generally recognised as the
queen's lover.

That he was not the original hero of the tale is proved by the fact
that we possess a Breton _lai_ which relates the story in a better and
more coherent form, ascribing it to a certain _Tyolet_, whom we do not
meet in any of the later Arthurian romances.[36]

The main points in which the versions differ are: (_a_) the maiden who
comes to Arthur's court is herself the prize of the victor. This is
a better version, as it simplifies the action, and accounts for the
anxiety felt at the absence of the knight, who should have returned to
court at once on achieving the venture. (_b_) Gawain's action (which is
the same in both poems, with the exception that instead of his slaying
the traitor, Tyolet arrives in time to prevent a combat) is clearly
explained; the brachet, which has acted as guide, returns alone to
court, and leads Gawain to the scene of the combat. In the _Lancelot_
version it is difficult to understand how Gawain, who had no guide,
finds his friend so quickly. (_c_) Tyolet weds the maiden, and returns
with her to her own land, where he becomes king.

Here we have an unmistakable instance of a _lai_ originally told of
another hero being transferred to Lancelot.

The story itself, however, seems to be older than its connection
with either hero; even in the _Tyolet_ version, superior as it is to
the _Lancelot_, the real meaning of the tale appears to have been
overlooked or misunderstood. In its original form I think it was
clearly a transformation tale. The stag was the enchanted relative of
the princess who sought the hero's aid, and the spell which detained
him in animal form could only be broken by the cutting off of the foot.
We know that the smiting off of a member of the body (generally the
head) is a well-recognised form of terminating an enchantment, and in
this case the proposed solution would explain what, in the tale as it
stands, appears a piece of unredeemed brutality.

A peculiarity of the _Tyolet_ version is that it falls into two
well-marked divisions, the first recounting the upbringing of the
hero, and his arrival at Arthur's court, a tale bearing a marked
affinity to the Perceval _Enfances_; the second being the 'white-foot'
adventure. Now in this first part the hero, going into the woods in
search of game, sees and follows a stag, which is transformed into a
man before his astonished eyes. I suspect that this episode formed the
connecting link between the two sections of the _lai_, the real meaning
of the latter stag not having been lost when the two were united. A
confirmation of this theory is found in the fact that one of the
numerous 'shape-shifting' changes of Merlin was into the form of a stag
with a white fore-foot.[37] I also think this may well be the origin
of the mysterious white stag guarded by lions which meets us so often
in later Arthurian story. In the _Queste_ stag and lions change into
Our Lord and the Four Evangelists, thus preserving the transformation
character.

But whatever the original character of the story, it has, in the form
in which we now possess it, become affected by _a motif_ extremely
popular in mediæval times, that of the _False Claimant_. The leading
characteristics of this widely spread tale may be summed up as follows.
The hero at great risk to himself performs a feat, and possesses
himself of a proof (previously agreed upon) that he has done so. The
traitor comes on the scene, possesses himself of the proof (either
attempting to slay the hero himself or believing him to be already
dead), and claims the reward; not knowing that the hero has possessed
himself of a further proof of his deed. The hero, left for dead,
recovers, and appearing at the critical moment, confutes the traitor by
the production of the second and decisive proof.

Of this story practically countless variants exist; Mr. E. S. Hartland,
in his _Legend of Perseus_, vol. iii., has tabulated a large number
gathered from all parts of the world. The most general version appears
to be that in which the feat consists in the slaying of a dragon, to
be testified by the production of the head. The hero, not content with
cutting off the head, also cuts out the tongue, and is thus enabled to
confute the traitor, who has omitted to look within the monster's jaws.
It will be noted that neither in the _Tyolet_ or _Lancelot_ versions
does the hero possess such a proof: in the first instance the impostor
is put to shame by Tyolet's inquiry as to who slew the lions; in the
second Gawain settles the matter by slaying the traitor. This lack of
an important feature of the original tale seems to indicate that the
_lai_ in its primitive form did not belong to this group of stories,
though from the character of the feat related the borrowing of features
from so widely known a folk-tale was almost natural development.

A very good example of the _False Claimant_ is found in some versions
of the _Tristan_ legend, notably the poems of Gottfried von Strassburg,
and his source, Thomas of Brittany: very few of the prose versions have
retained it.[38]

M. Gaston Paris seems inclined to connect the 'white-foot' adventure
with this. Ultimately, of course, the stories must go back to a common
source; but the _Cerf au pied blanc_ presents the adventure in so
general a form, that one can hardly connect it with any special variant
of this very widespread folk-tale. The _Tristan_ variant is, as I have
said above, an especially good example, with many well-marked features,
none of the more characteristic of which are reproduced in the _lai_.
But we have in the same vast compilation the account of another
adventure of the same character, also ascribed to Lancelot, which does
appear to be directly drawn from the Tristan story.

In _Morien_[39] we learn that Morien, Gawain, and Lancelot, seeking
for Perceval and Agloval, come to a hermit's cell at four cross-roads.
They ask whither the roads lead, and learn that that on the right
hand leads to a waste land devastated by the ravages of a devil in
the form of a beast. Lancelot determines to brave the adventure and,
in spite of the remonstrances of the hermit, chooses this road. The
writer of the tale informs us (but it should be kept in mind that the
hermit _does not_ tell Lancelot) that the lady of the country has
promised her hand to whoever will slay the monster. A knight who has
long loved her, but is too cowardly to dare the venture, keeps a watch
upon all those who may attack the beast, with the secret intention of,
if possible, slaying the victor and taking the credit of the deed to
himself. Lancelot arrives at the monster's lair, which is surrounded by
the bones of men and animals slain by the fiend. No description of the
creature is given, but it is quite clear from the incidental details
that the writer conceived of it as a dragon; Lancelot's sword and spear
can make no impression on its skin; its claws pierce through shield
and hauberk and score deep wounds on the knight's body; it breathes
forth venom, which would have slain Lancelot but for the ring he wore
(no doubt the ring given him by the Lady of the Lake); finally, as it
opens its jaws to devour him, the knight thrusts his spear down its
throat and pierces the heart. The monster utters a loud cry, which is
heard over two miles off, and expires. The traitor knight, hearing the
cry, knows that the monster is slain and rides to the spot. Lancelot
is binding up his wounds; the traitor approaches, making feint to
aid him, deals him a treacherous blow and leaves him for dead; then
he cuts off the foot and is riding away when Gawain appears upon the
scene and challenges him. Lancelot recovers from his swoon in time
to bid Gawain slay the traitor, which he does. Before Lancelot can
recover from his wounds news comes that the King of Ireland has invaded
Arthur's kingdom, and is besieging the queen in one of her castles.
Lancelot and Gawain go at once to her aid, and nothing is heard of the
lady whose hand was to have been the reward of the venture. But, as I
have noted above, there is no sign that Lancelot knew anything of the
promised guerdon; his conduct is therefore more intelligible and less
unchivalrous than in the _lai_.

The special points of contact with the _Tristan_ story are these:
(_a_) The nature of the animal, which is undoubtedly in both cases a
dragon. (_b_) The hero undertakes the adventure unsolicited. Tristan
lands in Ireland, hears of the dragon's ravages and goes off secretly
to slay it. He has no thought of winning Iseult for himself. In both
versions of the _lai_ the lady herself invites the adventure. (_c_)
The character of the traitor: in both _Tristan_ and _Morien_ he is
represented as being too cowardly to dare the feat himself but as
watching his opportunity to rob a brave man of the fruit of his valour.
In the _lai_ variants 'opportunity makes the traitor'; in these two
versions the traitor is on the watch for his opportunity. (_d_) In both
cases he is attracted to the spot by the death-cry of the monster. The
appearance of Gawain, on the other hand, the death of the traitor, and
the fact that it is the _foot_ and not, as it should be, the _head_,
which is cut off, clearly show the influence of the _lai_.

The ending is, of course, unsatisfactory, and it is curious that the
writer, who in the details noted above clearly shows a knowledge of
the excellent and complete version of the _Tristan_ legend, should
not have finished his story more in accordance with that tale. It
is not impossible that the original adventure as contained in the
_Morien_ poem _was_ the stag adventure, and that the compiler of the
Dutch _Lancelot_, who evidently possessed an extensive collection of
Arthurian documents, knowing that he was going to relate the story
later on, purposely altered the earlier portion more in accordance
with the dragon adventure of the Tristan tale, retaining the later
portion for the sake of the rôle played by Gawain, who is one of his
heroes, and who, it is scarcely necessary to say, does not appear in
the _Tristan_ legend. Unfortunately we have no other version of the
_Morien_ save that of the Dutch _Lancelot_, so the question must remain
undetermined; all we can say with certainty is that the adventure
as there related is combined from two distinct variants of the same
original _motif_.

An interesting feature of the _Morien_ story is that it shows the
_Lancelot_ legend influenced by the _Tristan_ at a point practically
unconnected with the central _motif_ of that story, the loves of
Tristan and Iseult.

The story of the _cerf au pied blanc_ as attributed to Lancelot does
not appear to have obtained any popularity. In no variant of the prose
_Lancelot_ is it related, or even alluded to; the version preserved by
the Dutch compiler is, so far, the only one that has been discovered.
But existing as it does, it clearly points to a date at which the
Lancelot story was still told in isolated _lais_, and before the
introduction into the legend of his love for Guinevere. Once fixed as
Guinevere's lover, we can understand how the tale dropped out of the
completed legend: alter the ending as they might the obstinate fact
would remain that Lancelot voluntarily undertook an adventure the
successful achievement of which would necessitate him becoming the
husband of a stranger maiden; it was an _impasse_ from which he could
only escape at the cost of an insult to one or the other queen, and
very wisely the compilers of his legend ignored the story.

It also seems probable that the original character of the tale itself
was not properly understood by its compilers: an evidence, if evidence
were really needed, of the extreme antiquity and, if I may use the
word, 'unlocalised' character of the elements which went to compose the
Arthurian cycle.



CHAPTER IV

LE CHEVALIER DE LA CHARRETTE


With the poem, the title of which heads this chapter, we reach a fresh
stage in the Lancelot tradition, and one which, though it has already
been the subject of acute and scholarly discussion, still presents many
points of difficulty.[40]

The story related in the poem is so well known, and the poem itself
so accessible, that it is unnecessary to do more than summarise the
leading features. It is, as we all know, the story of Guinevere's
abduction by Meleagant, and her rescue by Sir Lancelot.

A knight (Meleagant) appears at Arthur's court, and boasts of the
Breton subjects he holds in captivity. Arthur can free them if he
will commit Guinevere to the care of a knight who will fight a single
combat with him; if he (Meleagant) be defeated, all the prisoners shall
be freed; if he be victor, Guinevere, too, is his captive. Kay, by
demanding from Arthur a boon, the nature of which is unspecified, and
which the king grants before hearing, obtains permission to escort
the queen. Gawain follows, meets Kay's horse, riderless and covered
with blood, and is then confronted by an unnamed knight (Lancelot),
who begs the loan of a steed. Gawain gives him his, and follows on a
spare steed as quickly as possible, only to find traces of a sanguinary
conflict, and his own horse slain. He overtakes Lancelot, who, meeting
a dwarf driving a cart, mounts after a momentary hesitation, and the
two continue the pursuit together. Meleagant's land (or rather that
of his father Baudemagus) is surrounded by deep water, crossed by two
bridges, one of a sword-blade, the other under the water. Lancelot
chooses the first, crosses in safety, fights with Meleagant, and frees
Guinevere, who, however, receives him coldly, being offended at his
momentary hesitation before mounting the cart. Lancelot, in despair,
tries to commit suicide; Guinevere, hearing a rumour of his death, is
overwhelmed with grief, and on his next appearance receives him with
the greatest favour. They pass the night together, Lancelot gaining
access to the queen's chamber by means of a heavily barred window,
and severely wounding his hands in wrenching asunder the bars. The
traces of blood on the bed-clothes cause the queen to be accused
of a _liaison_ with Kay, who, severely wounded, is sleeping in the
ante-chamber. Lancelot undertakes to prove Guinevere's innocence by a
combat with Meleagant, which shall take place at Arthur's court; but,
having set out to seek Gawain, is treacherously decoyed into prison
by his foe. Meleagant, by means of forged letters, persuades the
queen that Lancelot has returned to court, whither Guinevere repairs,
escorted by Gawain, who has meanwhile arrived on the scene. Lancelot,
who has been released on parole by his jailor's wife, to attend a
tourney, is subsequently walled up in a tower by Meleagant, from which
prison he is released by his rival's sister, and reaching court at the
last moment, overcomes and slays Meleagant.[41]

The capital importance of this poem lies in the fact that here, for
the first time, so far as our present knowledge goes, we meet with
those relations between Lancelot and the queen which form so important
a part of the completed Arthurian legend. Are these relations, then,
an invention of Chrétien, or were they already familiar to the public
for whom he wrote? Here I shall only treat this question incidentally,
deferring a full study of the point to a subsequent chapter; the
questions which mainly concern us relate rather to the nature (_a_) of
the story itself, (_b_) of Chrétien's share in its development.

In the introductory lines we learn that the poem was written at the
instance of the Countess Marie de Champagne, who supplied '_Matiere et
san_.' I take this to mean that she only supplied a verbal outline of
the story, and left it to Chrétien to fill in details. Thus, as regards
source, Chrétien stands in a different position in this poem than in
his other romances. In every other instance he had either in _livre_ or
_conte_[42] (which latter I take to be the recital of a professional
story-teller) a fixed source from which he drew his tale.

The internal evidence agrees with these indications: the _Charrette_
is far inferior to Chrétien's other work; the construction is feeble
in the extreme, and bristles with contradictions and obscurities. Why,
for instance, does Meleagant suggest that Guinevere shall be put in
charge of a knight and follow him? Why not challenge a single combat at
the court, where there would be a public to see that the rules of such
combat were observed? It may be that the original scene of abduction
was a wood, and this is an awkward attempt to combine a later version,
_i.e._ Arthur's court, with a primitive feature; but in any case it
starts the story on wrong lines. Gawain (who is also mounted) follows
_directly_ on Lancelot's track, but before he comes up with him there
has been time for a fierce conflict to take place. These conflicts with
a valiant knight do not as a rule terminate so quickly, even though the
odds be unequal! Gawain, who of course knows Lancelot well, apparently
fails to recognise him, even when he unhelms for supper. The maiden of
the castle warns them against sleeping in a certain bed; whoever does
so will scarce escape with his life. Lancelot braves the adventure, but
the next morning when he is found safe and well, the lady expresses
no surprise. We are told that the maiden whom Lancelot frees from the
knight at the ford knows him and _is afraid he will know her_, but no
explanation of this is vouchsafed, and her identity is not revealed. We
are expressly told that the kingdom of Gorres is surrounded by a water
which none may pass, but before Lancelot even arrives at the water and
bridge he is in the kingdom of Gorres, peopled by captive Bretons. No
explanation is given of how Guinevere knew of Lancelot's hesitation to
mount the cart; there was no witness but the dwarf, and if he noted so
momentary an indecision he must have had a curiously keen appreciation
of the rules of _Minne_; and how did he come to see Guinevere? But
perhaps it was a case of telepathy. In the same manner Kay becomes
mysteriously aware of what has passed between Lancelot and the queen.
And these instances might be indefinitely multiplied. Chrétien's
_Lancelot_ is scarcely less incoherent than Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's;
and we begin to wonder if there were not some inherent weakness in the
legend itself, which rendered it impossible for any one to give an
intelligible account of the hero's proceedings.[43]

I think it is clear that the decided inferiority of the _Charrette_ as
compared with Chrétien's other poems is due to the deficiencies of his
source. He was left in the lurch, and his genius was not of a nature
to extricate him from his difficulties. When he had before him a story
the form of which was already practically fixed, and which required
polishing rather than rearrangement, Chrétien could put it into
charming language, and make a finished and artistic piece of work out
of a simple original. I should express the charm of his work as being
that he clad the folk-tale in the garments of the court, and taught
it to move easily in its foreign trappings. But when his materials
were scanty, and he was called upon to supplement them from his own
imagination, he was unequal to the task; and he was artist enough to
know it, and to leave unfinished a work which did him little credit,
while he turned to one the nature of which precisely suited his special
talent. It is not, I think, without significance that the best of
Chrétien's poems follows immediately on his worst. He had a reputation
to retrieve, and he did it gallantly in the _Yvain_.

Nor is Chrétien really successful in depicting lovers as lovers: they
are little more than lay figures; they talk at great length, and
indulge in analysis of their feelings, expressed in the most graceful
and ingenious language; but one

    '_Iseut ma drue, Iseut m'amie,
    En vous ma mort, en vous ma vie!_'

is worth all Chrétien ever wrote on the subject; the breath of the god
is not in it. Yet, so far as the _Charrette_ goes, this is scarcely
to be laid to his blame. Nowhere, save perhaps in one chapter of
Malory, is there the least ring of reality in the loves of Lancelot and
Guinevere. They go through all the prescribed gestures of their rôle
with admirable precision. Guinevere is by turns gracious, disdainful,
frantically jealous, and repentant of her jealousy; Lancelot is
courteous, humble, despairing, hopeful: their relation to each other
is all that _Minne dienst_ can require between a knight and his lady,
but nowhere in the whole wearily drawn-out story does the real, pent-up
human feeling break through. We can never imagine these two taking one
another by the hand and wandering off into the wilderness, content, and
more than content, with each other's presence. The story of Lancelot
and Guinevere is artificial, not natural; it demands the setting of
the court, not of the woodlands. Only in the passage where Malory
describes their parting do they, for a moment, become real; and the
effect produced is probably due to the simplicity of the old knight's
language, and the virile force of the English tongue.

Nor do I think that these relations are due to Chrétien. He treats them
as an already established fact, well known to his readers, and needing
no explanation. Certain episodes of the poem, the finding of the comb,
the testing of the knight's fidelity to the queen by the lady in whose
castle he passes the night, presuppose a state of things generally
familiar. Every one knows who Lancelot is; every one will know why he,
and no other knight, shall rescue the queen.

That there was a previous story of Guinevere's rescue from imprisonment
under analogous circumstances is quite clear: the references found in
the Arthurian romance are too numerous, and too archaic in form to
be derived from a poem so late in date, so artificial in character,
and so restricted in popularity as the _Charrette_. Of this story we
have at least three distinct accounts: (_a_) that given by Ulrich von
Zatzikhoven, where the 'other-world' character of the imprisonment
is strongly marked, but the rescue is the work of an enchanter, and
not of Arthur or any of his knights; (_b_) that given in the _Vita
Gildæ_, when the abductor is Melwas, king of _Æstiva Regis_ (Somerset),
the place of imprisonment Glastonbury, and there is again no special
rescuer, Arthur marches at the head of his armies to her relief, but it
is the intervention of St. Gildas and the Abbot of Glastonbury which
brings about the desired result; (_c_) the account given in the poem
under discussion.[44]

Of these three variants the version of the Lanzelet stands by
itself; it represents the 'other-world' under an entirely different,
and probably more primitive, aspect, and makes no effort at
localisation.[45] The other two variants fall together, Melwas, the
king of _Æstiva Regis_, which is admittedly Somerset=Meleagant of
Gorres, whose chief city is _Bade_=Bath, also in Somerset. These
later versions have been localised, and I think it is clear that the
localisation took place on English soil, _i.e._ it is an insular and
not a continental variant.

Now, from the very nature of the story it is clear that in its
_earliest_ forms it would not be attributed to any special locality,
and therein the _Lanzelet_ version again appears to be the elder;
further, the variants must have arisen at a time when it was clearly
understood that, however they might apparently differ, Valerîn's
thorn-girt dwelling and Meleagant's water-circled castle meant one
and the same thing, _i.e._ that both were recognised methods of
describing the 'other-world.' In this connection it is instructive to
recall the versions of Brynhild's wooing by Siegfried; her residence
is universally admitted to be an 'other-world' dwelling, and we find
it depicted under forms closely corresponding with the variants of
the Guinevere story; _e.g._ Waberlohe (_Volsunga saga_)=Valerîn's
hedged magic slumber; Castle surrounded by water (_Thidrek saga_) =
Meleagant's stronghold; Glasberg (_Folk-songs_)=Glastonbury. The
parallelism is significant.[46]

It is quite clear, I think, that such a story can be in no way ascribed
to the invention of a poet living towards the end of the twelfth
century, but must be of very much earlier date. Chrétien was dealing
with a late variant of a primitive and very widely known theme. But
could this variant, which, as seems probable, only reached him through
the medium of a tale related by the Countess Marie of Champagne, have
come from England, to which country the localisation of Glastonbury,
Somersetshire, and Bath point? It is quite possible. We must remember
who Marie de Champagne was: she was a princess of France, the daughter
of King Louis VII. and Eleanor of Aquitaine, who, on her divorce from
the French king, married Henry of Normandy, afterwards Henry II.
of England. That is, at the time Chrétien wrote, the mother of his
protectress was Queen of England and wedded to a sovereign who took
a keen and personal interest in all that concerned King Arthur. The
_possibility_ of transmission is as clear as daylight; the question
of course is, Would Marie be inclined to take advantage of it? The
relations between her father and his divorced wife were certainly
curious, as Louis made no objection to the marriage of the eldest son
of Henry and Eleanor with his daughter by his second marriage, but
whether there was intercourse between mother and daughter I have not
been able to discover. But the question ought to be easily solved by
some historical specialist who has made a study of that period. The
point is interesting and important, and it is to be hoped some one will
clear it up for us.

A question of secondary interest is whether Chrétien's poem is the
source of contemporary and later allusions to the story. Of such
allusions, or rather versions, we have two of special importance, that
contained in Malory's compilation, and that given by Hartmann von Aue,
in his _Iwein_. With regard to the former, I can only say that though
I am in a position to offer new and important evidence with regard to
the manuscript Malory used, and his method of composition, yet that
evidence leaves the _Charrette_ question unsolved. Of _direct_ evidence
there is none; the _indirect_ and _inferential_ evidence tends to
show that Malory's source was _not_ the poem of Chrétien de Troyes.
The two points on which we can be certain are, (_a_) that Malory did
not know the earlier part of the prose _Lancelot_ at all, that his
manuscript began at a point subsequent to the _Charrette_ adventure;
and (_b_) that he does not invent adventures, and but rarely details.
Dr. Sommer's conclusions, as set forth in his _Study on the Sources of
Malory_, are founded on very insufficient premises, and will need to
be thoroughly revised to bring them into accordance with our present
knowledge. This question I shall discuss fully in a later section. The
_Iwein_ version is of great importance, and though I have previously
referred to it,[47] yet in the light of Professor Foerster's strongly
repeated assertion that Hartmann knew no other version of the story
than that given by Chrétien, I think it is worth while going over the
evidence again.

It must be remembered that Hartmann's _Iwein_ is a translation of
Chrétien's _Chevalier au Lion_, and though rather more diffuse, follows
its source closely. In the French poem which, as we have noted above,
immediately succeeded the _Charrette_, Chrétien deftly introduces more
than one allusion to Guinevere's abduction. He says that Guinevere
has been carried off by a knight _d'estrange terre_, who went to the
court to demand her; but he would not have succeeded in carrying her
off had it not been for Kay, who deceived or deluded (_anbricona_) the
king into putting the queen in his charge (ll. 3916-39). In another
place, he says that the king, '_Fist que fors del san Quant aprés
lui l'an anvoia. Je cuit que keus la convoia Jusqu'au chevalier qui
l'an mainne_' (ll. 3706-11). Now, let us suppose that, as Professor
Foerster insists, Hartmann had not read the _Charrette_ and knew no
other version of the story, what would he, who knew French well, and
translates without blunders and confusion, understand by this? We must
note particularly what Chrétien tells and what he omits. He distinctly
says that the knight came to the court and demanded the queen (the
real version of the poem is less blunt, as we have seen); that Arthur,
deluded, put the queen in Kay's charge to lead her to the knight, and
that they followed him. He does _not_ say that the whole catastrophe
came about through Arthur's granting a boon before he knew in what it
consisted; he implies that the folly lay in Arthur's sending the queen
after the knight, not in the circumstances which forced him to do so.

Now what does Hartmann say? In his version a knight appeared before
Arthur and demanded a boon, the nature of which he refused to specify
beforehand. Arthur granted it. It was that he should carry off the
queen. This he did. The knights armed and followed. Kay was the first
to overtake him, and was struck from his horse with such violence that
his helmet caught in a tree and he hung suspended. He was not carried
off captive. One after another all the knights are vanquished, and the
queen carried off. Gawain is not at court; he returns the next day, and
goes in search of the queen. Lancelot is not mentioned throughout; and
the inference is that Gawain frees her.

What is specially noticeable in this account is that Hartmann agrees
with Chrétien in the very feature which the French poet does _not_
specify, _i.e._ the cause of the queen's abduction--a boon rashly
granted, though he transfers the asking from Kay to the knight; while
he differs from Chrétien in the feature which he _does_ specify, _i.e._
that Kay takes Guinevere _after_ the knight. Further, he adds details
which would clear up some of the inconsistencies in Chrétien's own
account: _i.e._ if Gawain were not present at the time, and all the
knights followed one after the other and were defeated by Meleagant,
we can quite understand that when Gawain returned the next day and
followed on the trail, he _would_ find traces of the severe and bloody
conflict for which Chrétien's version leaves no room. On the face of
it, Hartmann's version is much the more logical and coherent of the
two. I have remarked above on the extreme awkwardness of the action at
the outset of the story; that Meleagant should carry off Guinevere by a
ruse similar to that employed by Gandîn in the _Tristan_ poems is far
more in accordance with mediæval tradition. If Hartmann's divergence is
a mere 'invention,' he not only deserves praise for his sagacious skill
in constructing a story,[48] but excites admiration for the acuteness
which enabled him to detect the leading _motif_ of the adventure to
which his source afforded absolutely no clue.

Wolfram von Eschenbach's references to the _Charrette_ adventure are
curious; at first sight it seems certain that he is referring to
Chrétien's poem, but on closer examination the matter is not so clear.
Thus he says that Lancelot crossed the sword-bridge, fought with
Meljakanz (Meleagant), and freed Guinevere--all of which agree with
Chrétien.[49] But, on the other hand, he mentions Kay's suspension
on the tree (Hartmann's version), and does not know that Meleagant
was slain by Lancelot, or that the captive Bretons were freed by his
coming--both Meleagant and the Breton knights are fighting at the
tournament of Beaurösch.[50] Indeed, Wolfram appears to know far more
of these latter than can be gathered from Chrétien's poem. Of course,
we cannot here say whether these references are due to Wolfram or to
his source, which, as recent research has clearly shown, was certainly
the work of a man of varied and extensive learning.[51] Nor is it at
all clear that Wolfram knew Lancelot as Guinevere's lover; he simply
says that her imprisonment grieved him '_im was gevancnisse leit, die
frou Ginòvêr dolte_,' which might be postulated of any loyal servant of
Arthur's. Again when, at the beginning of Book xii., the poet recites
Gawain's love-sorrows, he compares his pains first to those suffered
by various heroes in the achievement of knightly deeds in general, and
then rehearses the parallel cases of sundry lovers. In the first list
Lancelot and the sword-bridge appear in company with Iwein and the
fountain, and Erec and the '_Schoie de la kurt_' adventure, neither of
which were undertaken for the sake of love (why Garel slew the lion
and fetched the knife, we do not know), but among the lovers he and
Guinevere are not mentioned.

Taking into consideration the fact that the story is, by its very
nature, far older than any literary form we possess; that there was
certainly in existence one version at least other than Chrétien's
(proved by the _Lanzelet_); and that Chrétien's source was avowedly
an _informal_ one, I do not think it impossible that in the poems of
Hartmann and Wolfram we have references to the original form of the
story of which Chrétien had only an incomplete knowledge. Hartmann's
version is certainly not drawn from the _Charrette_; in Wolfram's case
we can only give the verdict '_not proven_.'

In the whole investigation I think we can only consider two points as
satisfactorily settled: the original character of the story, and the
fact that Lancelot was not at first the hero of the adventure.



CHAPTER V

THE POSITION OF CHRÉTIEN DE TROYES IN THE ARTHURIAN CYCLE


At the stage which we have now reached in our examination of the
_Lancelot_ legend, it is, I think, imperative to form a clear idea of
the position which, in the great body of Arthurian literature, shall
be assigned to the author of the romance we have last studied. On the
question of the literary excellence of Chrétien's handling of his
material all are more or less agreed, but the problem of his relation
to his sources, the question whence he drew the stories he told with
such inimitable grace and felicity, is one which has long provoked a
lively interchange of argument. The romances of Chrétien de Troyes
form one of the chosen battlegrounds of widely differing schools of
Arthurian criticism.

Inasmuch as during the varying fortunes of a long-continued conflict
the elementary principles underlying the views respectively advocated
have a tendency to become obscured, and gradually misunderstood, it
is well that from time to time they should be clearly and formally
re-stated, in the light of such knowledge as recent investigation
may have cast upon them. We are then in a better position to judge
whether they retain, unimpaired, the force and cogency their adherents
have ascribed to them. Professor Foerster has apparently felt this
necessity, and, impelled by it, has, in the introduction to his edition
of the _Charrette_, given to the world what he evidently intends us
to regard as his matured and final conclusion on the question of the
source of Arthurian dramatic tradition.

Doubtless a similar statement from some leading scholar among the many
who hold views differing from Professor Foerster will be forthcoming;
in the meantime the present study appears to me to offer an excellent
opportunity for the re-statement of certain principles, and the
reiteration of certain facts, which cannot safely be left out of
consideration in such a study, and which Professor Foerster's argument
practically ignores.

To understand the position of Chrétien de Troyes to his sources,
whatever they may have been, we must, in the first place, have
possessed ourselves of the answer to two leading questions. (_a_) What
is the nature of the Arthurian tradition itself? (_b_) What was the
popular form assumed by that tradition at the time Chrétien wrote?
These are the main points, but they, of course, involve subsidiary
issues.

Generally speaking, the tendency of the school represented by Professor
Foerster is to regard the Arthurian tradition as divided into two
branches, historic and romantic. The former branch being _primarily_
represented by the _Historia_ of Geoffrey of Monmouth, the popularity
of which practically introduced Arthur to the literary world, and
_secondarily_ by certain passages in the earlier prose romances. This
branch contains features of _insular_ origin, reminiscences of the
historic Arthur and his fights with the Saxons; but the second and
far more important branch, the romantic, is of purely _continental_
origin. Arthur, as a romantic hero, is the product of Breton tradition
and folk-lore; Armorica, and not Wales, is the cradle of Arthurian
(romantic) legend; and it was Geoffrey's _Historia_ which gave the
requisite impulse to the formation of this tradition.

So much for theory, what now are the facts?

Without in any way minimising the popularity and influence of
Geoffrey's work, either in its original form or in the translation
of Wace, it is quite clear (_a_) that it did not represent _all_ the
historic tradition current concerning Arthur; (_b_) that his popularity
was of considerably earlier date. A comparison with the _Brut_ of
Layamon[52] will prove the first point; for the second, we have already
noted Professor Rajna's discovery of Arthurian names in Italian
documents as proving that such names must have been popular in Italy
at the end of the eleventh century. Further, from the testimony of the
bas-relief at Modena we see that the traditions associated with the
British king were not purely historic, but that he and his knights were
already the heroes of tales which have not descended to us. We cannot,
therefore, fix with any approach to certainty the date at which Arthur
became a romantic hero, but evidence points to a period anterior to
that generally admitted.

Then ought we not to distinguish between _romantic_ and _mythic_?
Professor Foerster's arguments appear to me to ignore Arthur as
a _mythic_ hero. Romance and myth are not the same thing; though
their final developments are apt to overlap, their root origins are
distinctly different.

The mythic element in Arthurian legend cannot be ignored--in fact, it
is practically admitted; but some scholars appear to lose sight of
its character. Yet if that character be rightly apprehended it will,
I think, be recognised that the distinguishing features are not due
to any demonstrable Armorican element; that the connection of Arthur
with Celtic myth must have taken place on _insular_ rather than on
_continental_ ground. Thus while Arthur may, or may not, represent the
_Mercurius Artusius_ of the Gauls, it is not possible to deny that he,
and at least one of his knights, Gawain, stand in very close relation
to early Irish mythic tradition. The persistence of Irish elements in
the Arthurian story is not a theory but an established _fact_. Where
would these stories, Arthurian and Irish, be most likely to meet and
mingle, in Great Britain, or in Armorica? The first is _a priori_
the more probable; not only is the distance less, but we know that
during the centuries between the life of the historic Arthur and the
appearance of Arthurian story a constant interchange of population went
on between Ireland and the northern parts of the British Isles. The
conclusion at which we should naturally arrive would be that stories
in which the Celtic element was presented under a form identical with
early Irish tradition would reach Brittany _viâ_ Great Britain, and
would not be of Armorican origin.

And this conclusion is strongly supported by the facts. We have
two remarkable stories told of Gawain, both of which find striking
parallels in early Irish legend, both are excellently preserved in
insular versions, neither is adequately represented by any known
continental text. I allude of course to _Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight_ and _The Marriage of Sir Gawain_.[53]

Of the first the existing French versions are, one and all, poor;
immensely inferior to the English poem, and showing in certain cases,
notably in _Perceval li Gallois_, a manifest lack of comprehension
of the story. The German version, _Diu Krône_, is preferable to any
of the French, but in no case is the story so well and fully told
as in the English poem, which cannot possibly be derived from any
known continental source. Of the main point of the second story, the
wedding of a young knight to a 'Loathly Lady,' the French poems have
no trace, though some seem to have retained a confused remembrance of
the transformation of a hideous hag into a maiden of surpassing beauty.
Mr. Maynadier, in his study of all the known variants, pronounces
unhesitatingly for the direct dependence of the English upon the Irish
tradition.[54]

In the first story, the Green Knight, the original hero of the
beheading challenge, is Cuchulinn, who, if he does not himself
represent a god, is certainly the son of a god. In the second the lady
is 'the sovereignty,' and through granting her request the hero obtains
the sovereignty of Ireland.

Both are thus distinctly mythical in character; and though the
English versions, as we now possess them, are of comparatively late
date, in neither case can the Irish version be later than the eleventh
century, while the internal evidence points a period anterior to the
introduction of Christianity.

Let us take another instance, the story of Guinevere's abduction and
rescue. Of purely mythical origin, the story was at first unlocalised,
but when localised it is on insular and not on continental ground.
To say, as Professor Foerster does,[55] that the mention of Bath is
no proof of an insular source simply shows that the writer has not
grasped the real facts of the case. The mention of Bath does not cover
the whole ground, it must be taken in connection with _Æstiva Regis_
(Somerset) and Glastonbury. The latter is, if I mistake not, the real
point of identification. A confusion between Glastonbury, Avalon,
and the abode of the departed had taken place previous to William of
Malmesbury: the exact date cannot be ascertained, but M. Ferd. Lot
considers the author of the identification to have been an Irish monk
writing in the tenth century. In a subsequent note M. Lot further
identified Melwas=Meleagant, whom all scholars admit to be a king of
the other-world, with the Irish 'king of the dead,' _Tigern-Mas_, of
which name he considers Mael-was to be the Welsh translation.[56]

Now it seems to me quite obvious that the connection of the king of the
other-world with the place looked upon as the special dwelling of the
departed must have _preceded_ his being considered as lord also of the
surrounding lands, _i.e._ Tigern-Mas=Maelwas must have been connected
with Glastonbury=Avalon _before_ he was thought of in connection with
Bath and _Æstiva Regis_. It is most probable that such a connection
would take place on _insular_ not on _continental_ ground, and as a
matter of fact the only text which connects Melwas with Glastonbury,
the _Vita Gildæ_, is an insular text, as is that which connects
Glastonbury with Avalon. Here, too, again, if M. Lot be right, we find
Irish influence at work.

It is probable that we may be able to add to this list the story of
Arthur's fight with the demon cat. The story is certainly told in a
continental text (_Merlin_), and located on continental ground, but the
identification of the monster with the _Cath Palug_ of Welsh tradition
and that again with the mysterious _Chapalu_ of French romance depends
on insular evidence.[57]

In his notice of Herr Freymond's monograph[58] M. Gaston Paris suggests
that the source will be found to be 'un trait sans doute fort ancien,
de mythologie celtique, que Gaufrei de Monmouth n'a pas accueilli';
while M. Loth, in a note appended to this critique, remarks that the
original vanquisher of the cat was certainly not Arthur but Kay. The
localisation of the story in Savoy, Herr Freymond considers to have
been due to the narration of pilgrims, and discusses the relations of
the houses of Savoy and Flanders with our Anglo-Norman kings.

Here then we have a group of stories, possessing a distinctive
(Celto-mythic) character, all of which are either better preserved,
solely retained, or originally localised in these islands; _i.e._
the evidence of facts is here in favour of an insular rather than a
continental origin. Nor do I think we shall be wrong if we ascribe a
decided importance to the fact that the tales told in these islands
appear to have been of a mythic rather than of a romantic character.

Granting then, that at Chrétien's time, and long previous, there was
current a body of tradition, historic, mythic, romantic, dealing with
the British king, how was it handed down, and in what shape did he
find it? Of course it will generally be admitted that for a long time
the transmission of such stories would be entirely--in Chrétien's days
it would still be partially--oral.[59] But in saying this we must
have a clear idea of what, in the case of traditional stories, oral
transmission implies. It does _not_ mean a game of 'Russian scandal,'
where the point is to see how much a story told from mouth to mouth can
be made to vary from its original form in the process; professional
story-_tellers_ were, and are, more conservative than story-_writers_.
The tales crystallise into certain formulæ of incident and expression
which survive often after the real signification has been forgotten.[60]

In the words of a recognised authority on folk-lore: 'Among many
peoples the _ipsissima verba_ of traditional tales are insisted upon;
the form, and even the details of the form, are often as much a part
of the tradition as the substance of the tale.'[61] Therefore when we
find two stories of marked traditional and folk-lore character agreeing
with each other in sequence of incident, detail, and even words, we do
not necessarily conclude that the versions are connected by borrowing:
they may be, but it is at least equally possible that they represent
independent versions of the same oral original.

This is, of course, well understood by the folk-lore student; but
unfortunately it is too often ignored by the literary critic, who is
too prone to devote attention to the literary form, while he ignores
the essential character of the story. Yet in solving the problem of
sources it is this latter which is the determining factor.

In examining into the sources of Chrétien de Troyes it is well to
remember that it is easy to exaggerate the necessity for a literary
source; it is difficult to exaggerate the conservative tendencies of a
professional story-teller of that date.

But besides the Arthurian legend proper, there was also current in
Chrétien's time a great mass of popular folk-lore, which, certainly on
the Continent, probably also on our island,[62] was told, or rather
sung, in the form of mythical tales or _lais_. These _lais_, in the
first instance in the Breton tongue, and independent of the Arthurian
cycle, were later translated into French eight-syllabic verse, and
largely Arthurised--if I may use the word.

The process in vogue appears to have consisted of two stages: in
the first, the king at whose court the events took place (himself
generally anonymous) was identified with Arthur; in the second stage,
the original hero was replaced by one of Arthur's knights. Among the
specimens which have been preserved we have examples of all the
stages: _lais_ entirely independent of Arthur; _lais_, the scene of
which is laid at Arthur's court; _lais_ in which the hero is one of
Arthur's knights; but one and all are in the same metre, that of
Chrétien's poems. Of an intermediate French form we have no trace.

The _lai_ of _Tyolet_, to which we have previously referred, is an
excellent example of this gradual 'Arthurisation.' As we have it, the
court at which the events take place is that of Arthur, the loyal
friend of the hero is Gawain, but nowhere else do we meet with Tyolet
as one of Arthur's knights: the inference is that we have here a _lai_
in the first stage of assimilation. The _lai_ consists of two parts;
the latter half, the stag adventure, is found in a separate form, but
here the hero is one of Arthur's most famous knights, Lancelot--the
process of assimilation is complete.

The first part of the _lai_ has many features which recall the
more famous 'Perceval' _Enfances_. That _Tyolet_ is anterior to
the evolution of the Lancelot story we have shown above[63]; the
probability is that it is also anterior to the great popularity of
the _Perceval_ story. When Perceval was once universally recognised
as the son of the widowed lady of the forest, there would be little
probability of the tale being told of a hero practically unknown to
Arthurian story. His adventures taken over by more famous knights,
Tyolet disappeared from the roll of heroes.

Again, among the _lais_ we have an important group dealing with the
main idea of a knight beloved by the wife of his lord, rejecting her
advances, incurring her displeasure, and finally departing to fairyland
with a fairy bride. Of this story we have three important variants,
agreeing in their main features but differing in detail: the _lais_ of
_Graalent_, _Guingamor_, and _Lanval_. Of these three, the scene of the
two first is laid at the court of an anonymous king; the action of the
third, translated by a contemporary of Chrétien, passes at the court
of Arthur. But, though the _lai_ of _Guingamor_ has only reached us in
its earlier and independent form, Chrétien himself refers to it in an
Arthurised version. He brings Guingamor to Arthur's court, and says of
him,

    '_de l'Isle d'Avalon fu sire.
    De cestui avons oï dire
    Qu'il fu amis Morgain la fee,
    Et ce fu veritez provee._'--_Erec_, ll. 1955-8.

M. Ferd. Lot[64] suggests that the identification is probably due
to Chrétien himself, but if we examine the passage closely I do not
think we shall find it to be so. It occurs in a list of knights who
visit Arthur's court for the marriage of Erec. The passage immediately
preceding deals with a certain Maheloas of l'Ile de Voirre.[65] He then
names two brothers, Graislemier de Fine Posterne and Guingamor. The
first named is generally identified as Graalent-Mor, the hero of the
_lai_ to which I have referred above.

The fact that Chrétien makes the two knights brothers clearly indicates
that he knew the close kinship existing between their stories; but
why, if dealing with a free hand, he should have made Guingamor, and
not Graalent, the lord of Avalon it is difficult to say. If free to
choose we should have expected the latter; the _lai_ of _Graalent_
stands in far closer connection with that of _Lanval_ (being a variant
of the same story) than with that of Guingamor; and Lanval weds the
mistress of Avalon. Or, since both were brothers, both might have
been represented as dwelling in that mystic island which had not one
queen alone as its denizen but nine. The real explanation alike of the
connection and the separation of the two knights appears to me to be
that Chrétien knew the one _lai_, and not the other, in an Arthurised
form.

Certainly it seems more probable that the gradual assimilation by the
_lais_ of an Arthurian character would, so far as the Continent is
concerned, take place on Breton rather than on French grounds. They are
originally Breton _lais_; Arthur is a Breton,[66] not a French, hero;
where would Breton folk-lore and Breton traditionary romance be more
likely to coalesce than in the home of both? I do not myself believe
that such coalition was the work either of Marie de France or Chrétien
de Troyes.

In any case it is beyond the shadow of a doubt that when Chrétien
wrote his first Arthurian poem there was already afloat a vast body
of popular folk-lore connected with the Arthurian legend, and existing
under the form of short poems in rhymed, eight-syllabic verse, the same
metre, in fact, as that adopted by Chrétien himself. It is also certain
that he knew these _lais_; highly probable that he knew some of them,
as his contemporary Marie de France did, in their Arthurised form. As
we shall see presently, there is strong ground for the presumption that
for the main incident of his most famous poem, _Yvain_, he was indebted
to such a _lai_.

Now, without accepting the mechanical theory of Herr Brugger,[67]
which would make the first Arthurian romances consist of _continental
lais_ automatically strung together, I certainly think that the _lais_
played a more important part in the evolution of these romances than
we generally realise. In a previous chapter[68] I have indicated what
would probably be the method of procedure. The original _lai_ would
be expanded by the introduction of isolated adventures; other _lais_,
which through demerit of style or music had failed to win popularity,
would be drawn upon for incident, or incorporated bodily; one or more
popular _lais_ would be added, and the whole worked over and polished
up into a complete and finished romance. At first the parts would hang
but loosely together, and there would be a good deal of re-selection
and discarding of incident before the work crystallised into shape,
though the form of the _original_ tale, which was the kernel of the
subsequent romance, would not be likely to vary much.

The _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven is, as I suggested above,
an example of a romance arrested in development: the kernel of the
whole can be detected, but the parts fit badly, and it has never been
really worked up into shape. But, unless I am much mistaken, we have
in the Welsh tale of _The Lady of the Fountain_ a specimen of the
same process at work, of capital importance for critical purposes,
since we also possess the completed work, _i.e._ the Mabinogi has
preserved Chrétien's _Yvain_ _in process of making_. The adventures are
practically identical, sequence and incident agree in the main, but in
the Welsh version they are much more loosely connected, and there are
significant breaks which seem to show where the successive redactions
ended. If we follow the indications of the version we shall conclude
that _as first told_ the story ended with Yvain's achievement of the
'spring' adventure and his marriage with the lady. This would, I think,
represent the original _lai_, which in its primitive form might well
be unconnected with Arthur's court: the king was probably anonymous.
The next step would be to Arthurise the story; Yvain must start from
Arthur's court, and naturally the court must learn of his success: this
was arranged by bringing Arthur and his knights to the spring where
they are themselves witnesses, and victims, of Yvain's prowess. It is
significant that in _all_ the versions extant Yvain is influenced in
his secret departure from court by the conviction that _Gawain_ will
demand the adventure of the spring, and thus forestall him; but in
the Welsh variant alone is this forecast literally fulfilled and the
undecided conflict between Yvain and Gawain fought at the spring. And
here the Welsh version breaks again. This was evidently the end of the
Arthurised _lai_, and the point where the conflict between the friends
was _originally_ placed. All the variants bear the trace of this
second redaction; the Welsh tale alone indicates clearly what was the
primitive form. Yvain's transgression of his lady's command (probably
first introduced for this purpose), a transgression much more serious
in the Welsh, where he stays away for three years, than in the other
versions, offered an elastic framework for the introduction of isolated
adventures; finally, when the whole was worked over in romance form,
his combat with King Arthur's invincible nephew was transferred to the
end of the poem, where it formed an appropriate and fitting climax to
his feats.

The theory suggested above is based upon certain recognised
peculiarities in the evolution of the Breton _lais_; but the question
whether we are justified in making such use of ascertained facts
naturally depends upon whether the story related in the romance in
question was in its origin one that we might expect to find related in
a _lai_; if it were _not_, then, however rational the hypothesis may
otherwise appear, we should regard it with suspicion as lacking solid
foundation.

Granting then that a considerable share in the completion of Arthurian
romantic tradition was due to the influence of _lais_ originally
independent of that tradition, that the process of fusion had already
commenced when Chrétien wrote his poems, and that he was himself
familiar with such _lais_, each of the above points having been already
proved, our next step must be to examine the _character_ of the stories
related by Chrétien.

Two of the five works we possess (I do not count the _Guillaume_,
which whether it be by Chrétien or not lies outside the scope of our
inquiry) must at once be put on one side. Neither _Cligés_ nor the
_Charrette_ story (in the form Chrétien tells it) can be based upon
_lais_. But the character of the three more famous poems, _Erec_,
_Yvain_, and _Perceval_, is precisely that of a romance composed of
traditional and folk-lore themes. In the case of _Erec_ and _Perceval_
this is partially admitted even by the most thoroughgoing advocate
of Chrétien's originality, though Professor Foerster would limit the
element to the _Sparrow-hawk_ and _Joie de la Court_ adventures in
the first, and to Perceval's _Enfances_ as representing a _Dümmling_
folk-tale in the second.[69]

On this subject I shall have more to say later on; for the present
I will confine my remarks to _Yvain_, on the construction of which
Professor Foerster holds a theory, highly complicated in itself,
and excluding, as a necessary consequence, any genuine folk-lore
element.[70]

According to this view the main idea of the poem is borrowed from the
story of _The Widow of Ephesus_, a tale of world-wide popularity, the
oldest version of which appears to be Oriental (Grisebach considered
it to be Chinese), and which in Latin form, as told first by Phædrus
and then at greater length in the compilation of _The Seven Sages of
Rome_, was well known in mediæval times.[71] With this is combined
other elements: a Breton local tradition, classical stories (the Ring
of Gyges and the Lion of Androcles), and other stories of unspecified
origin.

On the face of it, this theory postulates a highly artificial source,
and one calling for great powers of invention and combination; and when
we examine it, we find the main idea wholly inadequate to sustain the
elaborate fabric reared upon it. I have carefully studied _The Widow
of Ephesus_, both in earlier and later variants, and can only see the
slightest possible resemblance to the _Yvain_ story; true, in both a
widow, overcome with grief for the loss of her husband, speedily forms
a fresh attachment, but situation, details, _motif_, all are radically
different. In every variant of the first story the lady's action is
prompted by mere sensual caprice; in the second, it is the outcome of a
sound instinct of self-preservation. True, Laudine does eventually fall
in love with _Yvain_, but she contemplates marriage with him before
she has ever beheld him, influenced by the advice of her servant,
who paints in strong colours the defenceless condition of the land,
and who is aware of Yvain's passion for her lady. In _no_ variant of
the earlier tale does the lady marry the slayer of her husband (a
point, I believe, essential to the _Yvain_ story). Indeed, in many her
advances are rejected by the object of her passion; in _all_ she is
represented as refusing to leave the grave, and none are free from the
repulsive details accompanying her new-fledged passion, though these
are amplified in the later versions. In insisting on the fact that
the lady's re-marriage (often entirely lacking in the earlier story),
'_unter hässlichen unser Gefühl schwer verletzenden Bedingungen_,' is
the central point of both stories,[72] Professor Foerster overshoots
his mark. The conduct of the Lady of Ephesus is certainly offensive in
the highest degree, not so that of Laudine. For a woman, especially
if she were an heiress, in mediæval times marriage was an absolute
necessity. The true parallel to Laudine is here _not_ the widow of
many wanderings, but the Duchess of Burgundy, in _Girard de Viane_,
who, on the death of her husband, promptly appeals to Charlemagne.
'_A quoi sert le deuil?--donnez-moi un autre mari. Donnez moi donc
un mari qui soit bien puissant._'[73] _Un mari bien puissant_ was a
necessity of those days. The real truth is, that the situation was
already in the story, and mediæval compilers explained it in accordance
with the social conditions of the time, and the parallel situations in
contemporary stories.

A minor objection to the theory is, that it would make, not the hero,
but the lady, the real centre of the story, which is certainly not the
case. But, as we shall see, the tale in its original form is far older
than Chrétien, _and could by no possibility have been invented at so
late a date as Professor Foerster suggests_.

_Yvain_, as one of Arthur's knights, is of a date considerably anterior
to Chrétien. We find him in Wace's _Brut_, as a valiant hero, on whom
Arthur, after the death of Aguisel, bestows the crown of Scotland.[74]
Now, Professor Foerster himself states, and I think the great majority
of scholars will fully agree with him, that neither _Erec_, _Yvain_,
nor _Perceval_ were _originally_ Arthurian heroes, and undoubtedly
their connection with Arthur's court was of the slightest. If their
connection with Arthur marks a secondary stage in the story, and
_Yvain_ in the _Brut_ is already an Arthurian knight, it is pretty
obvious that the original tale connected with him, by virtue of which
he was admitted into the magic circle of Arthurian romance, must be
older even than Wace; in other words, he must have been the hero of a
popular adventure upwards of thirty years, at least, before Chrétien
wrote his poem. And if that original story was not the fountain-story,
what was it?

But if we look at the tale aright, I think we shall discover that its
essential character is so archaic that it may well be as old as the
most exacting criticism can require. What is it but the variant of a
_motif_ coeval with the earliest stages of human thought and religious
practice--the tale of him '_who slew the slayer, and shall himself be
slain_'? The champion who must needs defend his charge single-handed
against all comers, and whose victor must perforce take his place; and
how old this tale may be, Mr. Frazer has taught us.[75]

This surmise is strengthened by the nature of the challenge; Yvain's
pouring the water, which is followed by a storm, is a simple piece of
sympathetic magic--of rain-making, and, as such, is practised even
to-day by savages in different parts of the world. Such a story must,
by its very nature, have been originally _un_localised, even as it
cannot be dated; it could be postulated of _any_ place, it might be
practised everywhere--it belongs just as much, and just as little, to
South Africa in the present day as to the wood of Broceliande in the
twelfth century.

To treat such a story as a local tradition is a grave error. It may
have recalled in its details certain stories told of the Fountain
of Barenton, and, therefore, when transported to the Continent from
Wales (to which country the earlier redaction certainly belongs),
the continental story-tellers, finding the Fountain unlocalised, as
it naturally was in the original tale, connected it with the Breton
forest. But it is obvious that such connection is purely arbitrary,
and has no critical value. It is at variance with all the geography
of the story, which is located in Wales or on the Welsh border; and
neither the compiler of the Welsh version nor the English translator
of Chrétien's poem admit it, but adhere to the earlier and unlocalised
form.

I may here quote a remark of the distinguished folk-lore authority
to whom I have previously referred. Mr. E. S. Hartland says: 'The
rain-making incident has always seemed to me a very good evidence of
the traditional origin of the (_Yvain_) story. At all events it is an
incident very closely connected with savage magic.'

I do not suppose it would very much astonish any competent student
of these questions if some missionary in Africa, or traveller in the
South Sea Islands, was to publish a savage variant of our romance:
the substitution of the slayer for the slain, and the practice of
rain-making by the pouring out of water, are customs alive in certain
parts of the world to this day. But what would Professor Foerster say?
Would he still maintain that his '_Meister_' invented the story, and
credit the savage folk, whoever they might be, with the remains of a
vanished civilisation and literary culture?

I think it also highly probable that in the _Balaan and Balaain_
story, and in _Meraugis de Portlesguez_, we have variants of the same
theme. In each of these cases the hero must take the place of the
champion he defeats, and hold the post till in his turn he be defeated
and slain; while at the same time he succeeds to his predecessor's
relations with the lady of the castle, whose _ami_ he becomes.[76]
It will be observed that Herr Ahlström's suggestion that the lady may
originally have been a fairy--a suggestion contemptuously scouted by
Professor Foerster[77]--might be accepted without any detriment to
the original signification of the story, whereas Professor Foerster's
theory excludes any possible archaic origin, and is demonstrably out of
harmony with the very primitive rain-making incident.

It is obvious that such a tale as I have indicated above, belonging as
it does to the family of folk-lore and traditional tales, is precisely
the kind of story that might be related in a _lai_; and this was, I
believe, its original form. It is significant that Chrétien records
the fact that there was a _lai_ more or less closely connected with
the lady who became Yvain's wife; and, according to the reading of one
MS., that connection was very close indeed, being nothing less
than the relation of how Yvain won her to wife.

I print here the reading to which I refer, together with that of
Professor Foerster's edition:--

MS. 12560, _Bib. Nat._ (Anç. fr. 210), fol. 14, recto 2nd col.

    _Veanz touz les barons se done
    La dame a mon seignor 'Y.'
    Par la main de son chapelain
    Einsint la dame de lenduc
    La dame qui fu fille au duc
    Lan () donez dont len note_·|·_lai_.[78]

Professor Foerster's critical edition.

    _Veant toz ses barons se done
    La dame a mon seignor Yvain.
    Par la main d'un suen chapelain
    Prise a Laudine de Landuc
    La dame qui fu fille au duc
    Laudunet don an note un lai._

    --_Yvain_, ed. 1891, ll. 2148-53.

(Translation.)

    _All the barons beholding, gives herself
    The lady to my lord Yvain.
    By the hand of her chaplain
    Thus the lady of lenduc,
    The lady who was daughter to the duke,
    They have given to him of which (whom) one notes a lay._

    _All her barons beholding, gives herself
    The lady to my lord Yvain.
    By the hand of one her chaplain
    He has taken Laudine de Landuc,
    The lady who was daughter to the duke,
    Laudunet of whom (which) one notes a lay._

It will be observed that, grammatically, the phrase 'don an note
un lai' may refer to the wedding quite as well as to the supposed
Laudunet, while _in no other passage in the entire poem_ is the lady's
name or that of her father mentioned.

The MS. which offers the interesting variant quoted above is,
Professor Foerster tells us, in the dialect of Champagne (Chrétien was
a Champenois) of the thirteenth century, and stands in close relation
to the source of Hartmann von Aue's translation.[79]

For many reasons it appears to me that this reading deserves more
attention than it has yet received. It is, to say the least, curious
that Chrétien should go out of his way to remark upon a _lai_ dealing
with an absolutely unknown personage and one to whom he never refers
again. Chrétien's poems stand, _not_ at the commencement of the
Arthurian tradition, but at a very advanced stage of its evolution:
had there been current at that date, the end of the twelfth century, a
_lai_ important enough to be chronicled in this unusual manner (I can
recall no other instance in Chrétien's poems), some trace of the hero
of the _lai_, if not the poem itself, would surely have been preserved
to us. On the other hand, the version given in the Welsh tale has a
break precisely at this point, showing where the primary redaction
ended, and the character of the tale is, as we have seen, such as
might well be preserved in a _lai_. I believe that Chrétien is here
indicating the original source of this section of his poem.

The passage, moreover, has a curious affinity with one to which I shall
have occasion to refer later on, where the carelessness of a copyist
in running together two or three words has created what the editor of
the text read as a proper name, a reading adopted by his critics. But
here the text had not been worked over, and the result was a confused
reading which has baffled more than one commentator. The mere chance
that the right reading (here undoubted) has been preserved in a text
hitherto unaccountably neglected has enabled me to detect the error;
but had the copyists of the _Queste_ been as careful to preserve
the grammatical sense as those of the _Yvain_, we should have been
much puzzled to decide whether _D'Estrois de Gariles_ was or was not
originally _des trois de Gaule_![80]

It is a question for experts in palæography which is the more likely
error to be made, the running of two or three words into one,
eventually read as a proper name, or the separation of the letters
composing a proper name into two or three words.

It appears to me that the arguments advanced for the above view are,
as compared with Professor Foerster's arguments, _objective_ versus
_subjective_. Professor Foerster sees in the story of Yvain and his
lady a resemblance to the tale of the _Widow of Ephesus_, _therefore_
he concludes that Chrétien based his romance on that story; but in
support of his theory he offers no _proof_ whatever: there is no
evidence that Chrétien knew the tale, no reference to a book in which
it might be contained, no correspondence of name or phrase, and the
most characteristic incidents, the dwelling by the grave, and the
insult to the corpse, have no parallel in the romance.[81] The evidence
is purely subjective; satisfactory to the framer of the theory, but not
satisfactory to others.

The evidence for the theory advanced above is, on the contrary,
purely objective. The story must be of such a character that it might
be told as a _lai_--it is of such a character, _i.e._ folk-lore and
traditional; _proof_--the rain-making incident, and correspondence
with the _motif_ of 'slayer and slain.' We must have proof that
Chrétien knew the _lais_ current in his day--he refers to one of the
most famous, _Guingamor_, and couples the hero with that of another,
_Graalent_. We should like a reference to a _lai_ connected with the
story--we have the reference, at the very point where, according
to our theory, we might expect to find it. Further, the reading of
one MS., and that neither a late nor a poor one, gives a
remarkable indication of the contents of the _lai_. If on these grounds
we decline to accept the _Widow of Ephesus_ theory we are surely
neither prejudiced nor oblivious of facts.[82]

Nor is Professor Foerster more fortunate in his theory of the origin
of _Perceval_. He states it at great length in the introduction to the
_Charrette_,[83] but the main points may be summarised thus. The book
given to Chrétien by Count Philip of Flanders was a _Grail_ as distinct
from a _Perceval_ romance. The two were independent stories and their
combination was the work of Chrétien de Troyes. 'Dieser original
Gralroman enthielt natürlich keinen Perceval und auch nicht dessen
Sagen-motiv, sondern wird den uns sonst bekannten Gral-texten ähnlich
gewesen sein.'[84] 'Sollte das _livre_ aber, aller Unwahrscheinlichkeit
zu trotz, dennoch ein Perceval (d. h. Dümmlings-) Roman gewesen sein,
so erklärt sich ebenfalls warum das _livre_ nicht gefunden worden ist:
_der Name Perceval stand natürlich nicht in demselben sondern ist
durch Kristian von einem schon in Erec genannten Ritter auf den Helden
übertragen worden_.'[85]

Into such pitfalls can the obstinate adherence to a preconceived idea
lead the most distinguished scholar! What are the facts? In _Erec_,
Chrétien mentions Perceval by his full title, Perceval li Galois, as
at Arthur's court, but does not include him in the list of knights of
the Round Table;[86] but in _Cligés_, written some years later than
_Erec_, and according to Professor Foerster himself _between twenty
and thirty years before the Perceval_, the whole position is changed:
Perceval is not merely one of Arthur's knights, but second in rank,
inferior only to Gawain, thus displacing _Erec_, whose praises Chrétien
had sung at length, and superior to Lancelot, whom the poet also
celebrated before he wrote of Perceval.

This is the position. Cligés has come to a tournament at Ossenefort,
and has on the first two days overthrown successively Segramore and
Lancelot; on the third day:

    '_Del ranc devers Ossenefort
    Part uns vassaus de grant renon,
    Percevaus li Galois ot non.
    Lués que Cligés le vit movoir
    Et de son non oï le voir,
    Que Perceval l'oï nomer,
    Mout desirre a lui asanbler._'--_Cligés_, 4826-32.

This is the Perceval who was only a name to Chrétien! But Chrétien's
hero knows him! Can we avoid the conclusion that, at the time _Cligés_
was written, Perceval was already the hero of a well-known and highly
popular tale; so popular that the author felt justified in displacing
in his favour the hero (Erec) whose deeds he had already sung with such
marked success? If the story of Perceval li Galois be due to Chrétien,
then we must believe that, having conceived the tale in his mind,
and paved the way for its reception by the above reference, he yet
abstained from presenting it to the public for nearly thirty years! Or
could Perceval have been the hero of some other tale, the popularity of
which has waned before that of Chrétien's poem? Of any story connected
with him save the _Enfances-Grail_ adventure there is no trace, and
of these we have variants of the former _minus_ the Grail tradition
(_Peredur_ and the English _Sir Percyvelle_); but all the Grail stories
know the _Enfances_.

It is also significant that Chrétien in the _Erec_ mentions both
Gurnemanz (Gornemant) and L'Orguelleus de la Lande, both of them noted
characters of the _Perceval_ story; in fact, but for that story the
former would be nothing more than a name to us.

I have remarked in a note to chap. ii. that Chrétien apparently also
knew the enchanter of the _Lanzelet_. I had not noted this till I
had completed my study of the poem, and, as a footnote is apt to be
overlooked, I draw attention to it here. In the list of the knights of
the Round Table given in _Erec_, Chrétien ranks as eighth Mauduiz li
Sages; in Hartmann's translation the name is given as Malduiz li Sages;
_Diu Krône_ has Malduz der Weise; the _Lanzelet_ spells the enchanter's
name Malduz or Malduc, and qualifies him as der Wîse.[87]

I do not think there can be the least doubt that it is one and the
same individual who is referred to in these quotations, and the only
adventure known of him, and one which would fully account for his
sobriquet _li Sages_, is one which is preserved in a poem bristling
with _Perceval_ allusions,[88] the _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven.

I have said above that a critical edition of the _Lanzelet_ is
urgently needed, and I should not be surprised if the result of a close
examination of that poem were to show good reasons for fixing the date
of the _Perceval_ story (as a _Perceval_ and not a mere _Dümmling_
story) at a much earlier period than we have hitherto been inclined to
admit.[89]

Is it not the fact that story-tellers in mediæval times depended for
their popularity less upon the _manner_ in which they told their
stories than on the stories themselves? _i.e._, if they wished to
write a really popular poem they took a subject already popular,
and which they knew would be secure of a favourable hearing. Are we
really so unreasonable when we contend that it was the traditional,
folk-lore, popular character of the stories told in _Erec_, _Yvain_,
and _Perceval_, which made them so much more popular than _Cligés_? The
_Charrette_ is so manifestly inferior to Chrétien's other works that we
will not call it as evidence; it was, and deserved to be, little known.
But _Cligés_ stands on a different footing. The story is interesting,
it is well written, and the love-tale of Alexander and Soredamors
contains some of the poet's most characteristic writing; yet, compared
with the other poems, it took little hold on the popular fancy. Was it
not because the story was unknown to the general public with whom the
tale itself counted for more than the skill with which it was told?

I cannot but think that to treat such stories as the three named above,
solely as _Arthurian_ stories, is to base our criticism of them on
an entirely false foundation: they are only Arthurian in a secondary
sense, and criticism of them, to be accurate and scientific, must be
founded as much on folk-lore as on literary data. Nor, I submit, are
arguments, which may be sound enough as applied to the rise of the
Arthurian romantic legend, of necessity equally sound when applied to
stories of independent origin incorporated in that legend. I do not
say for a moment that Arthur as a _romantic_ hero is a continental
creation, personally I very much doubt it; but of this I am quite
certain, were that continental origin proved up to the hilt, it would
still leave unsolved the problem of the origin of these stories.

Before closing this chapter I would touch for a moment on the
geographical questions involved; for it seems to me that not sufficient
account has been taken of the marked difference between the geography
of these three and that of Chrétien's remaining two poems. The first
three have a common character. Yvain's adventures pass in and on the
borders of Wales. He starts from Carduel en Galles (Kardyf in the
English version), and after one night's rest reaches the fountain. It
is at Chester, not otherwise an Arthurian town, but one well within
the bounds of the story, that his wife's messenger finds him. Erec is
'_d'Estregalles_'; the towns are Caradigan, Carduel, Cærnant, Nantes.
So with Perceval, who is _li Galois_, we have Carduel, Dinasdron, the
Forest of Broceliande--exactly the geography we might expect in stories
of Welsh origin redacted on Armorican ground. Many of the names here,
as in certain of the _lais_, may be either insular or continental,
inasmuch as they are common to the Celtic race on both sides of the
Channel.

But in _Cligés_, and in a minor degree in the _Charrette_, we are
on different ground: the geography is that neither of Wales nor of
Brittany. Here we have Dover, Wallingford, Winchester, Windsor,
Southampton, Oxford, Shoreham, Bath, London; while we note a marked
omission of the distinctively _Arthurian_ localities. The _Charrette_
opens at _Carlion_, which it, however, apparently confuses with
_Camelot_.

Now this is surely significant. If Chrétien had a free hand in the
arrangement of his stories, if they were really compounded of elements
drawn from all sources and thus combined for the first time, why did
he shift his _mise-en-scène_ backwards and forwards in this curious
manner? Why turn from the geography of _Erec_ to that of _Cligés_
and the _Charrette_, only to revert to his first love in _Yvain_ and
_Perceval_? Is it not most probable that in those three stories, at
least, he was dealing with traditional matter, the localising of which
had already been effected?

In the case of _Cligés_ and the _Charrette_ it seems not improbable
that closer investigation may find grounds to support the theory of
a possible Anglo-Norman transmission, which would account for the
southern England geography.[90]

A point on which we may well lay stress is, that the independence of
Chrétien as a story-teller does not stand or fall with the existence
or non-existence of Anglo-Norman Arthurian poems. Their importance, in
relation to Chrétien, may easily be exaggerated by those unfamiliar
with the character of oral tales. If we once accept as a principle
the well-ascertained fact that such stories have a tendency to fall
into a set form, a fixed sequence of incident and detail, would
always be related in practically the same words, and, moreover, could
well contain more than one _sagen motif_, we shall realise that the
necessity of postulating a written source as explanation for the
agreement in sequence, incident, and phrase, becomes infinitely less
pressing.[91]

To my mind, the correspondences between the Welsh Arthurian tales and
Chrétien's three poems in question offer no proof that the former
repose directly on these poems as basis; but I consider it extremely
probable that many of the perplexing features of the question--_e.g._
the occurrence in the Welsh stories, and in translations of Chrétien's
poems, of details not to be found in the best MSS. of those poems--may
be accounted for by copyists and translators familiar with an oral
version of the tale, filling in details which Chrétien had either
never heard, or had purposely omitted. If we postulate, as from the
character of the stories we are justified in doing, a very widespread
knowledge of those tales, apart from any written source, we shall not
be surprised at the existence of a large number of minor variants; the
impossibility of explaining which on purely literary grounds drives
Professor Foerster and those who share his views to the unsatisfactory
expedient of multiplying MS. 'families.'[92]

To sum up the considerations advanced in the preceding pages, I think
we are justified in saying that the real _crux_ of Arthurian romance
is the period _before_ and not _after_ Chrétien de Troyes. Not that
the latter period does not offer us puzzles: it does, many and great,
but when we arrive at some definite and _proven_ conclusion as to
the materials with which the earliest compilers of metrical romance
were dealing, we shall have made a great step towards unravelling the
problem of their successors. So far, I do not think we have arrived
at such a conclusion; many theories are in the field, but none seem
entirely to meet the conditions of the question. My own conviction is
that, whether oral or written, Arthurian romantic tradition is of much
older date than we have hitherto been inclined to believe.

To arrive at any solid result in our investigations there are certain
principles which we must always keep in view, _e.g._, if the Arthurian
tradition consists (as it admittedly does) largely of folk-lore and
mythic elements, it must, so far as these elements are concerned, be
examined and criticised on methods recognised and adopted by experts
in those branches of knowledge--and not treated on literary lines and
literary evidence alone. Thus it is essential to determine the original
_character_ of a story before proceeding to criticise its literary
_form_. To treat stories of folk-lore origin from an exclusively
literary point of view is to render a false conclusion not merely
probable but _certain_.

In every case where an oral source appears probable, or even possible,
we must ascertain, from the evidence of experts in story-transmission,
what are the characteristics of tales so told, and what is the nature
of the correspondence existing between tales of common origin but of
independent development.

The evidence of proper names is valuable only in a secondary degree,
as testifying to the place or places of redaction. But the older the
story the less valuable they are as indications of original _source_,
the oldest tales having a strong tendency to anonymity. So we find that
in the _lais_ the older versions only speak of 'a king,' the later
identify that king with Arthur.[93]

If we take these elementary tests, and apply them to those of the
poems of Chrétien de Troyes for which a traditional origin may safely
be postulated, we shall I think arrive at the conclusion that there
is little ground for ascribing _inventive_ genius to the poet, whose
superiority over his contemporaries was _quantitative_ rather than
_qualitative_. He differed from them in degree, not in kind; he had a
keener sense of artistic composition, a more excellent literary style.
Given the same material as his contemporaries he produced a superior
result; when the material was deficient, as in the _Charrette_, the
result was proportionately inferior.

There is no necessity to belittle him as '_ein sklavischer
Übersetzer_'; there is no ground that I can see for crediting him with
an inventive genius foreign to his age. The truth lies, as it so often
does, midway between the two extremes.

In this connection I may well quote Dr. Schofield's sober and carefully
reasoned conclusion to his _Study of the Lays of Graalent and Lanval_:
'The process of combining separate episodes to make an extended poem,
we may well believe, had begun before the time of Marie's contemporary,
Chrétien de Troyes. He simply carried it one step farther, and devoted
his great literary talent to presenting in more attractive form,
with more modern courtly flourishes, the stories already existing.
Doubtless he himself made new combinations, and in so doing was
guided by a poet's sense of appropriateness, choosing such general and
subordinate episodes as would contribute best to the development of his
hero's character.[94] To him we must certainly ascribe the interesting
psychological discussions so numerous in his works. But still his power
of invention is not great. His art is shown above all in the way in
which he combines and arranges separate stories, or embellishes those
already told at considerable length.'[95]

These words, I believe, state in generous terms the position which
scientific criticism will ultimately assign to Chrétien de Troyes: they
represent the very utmost that can reasonably be claimed for him.

       *       *       *       *       *

 Herr Brugger's article, referred to on p. 66, did not come into my
 hands until these studies were in proof. Inasmuch as the theory
 regarding the Arthurisation of the _lais_ stated in this chapter and
 in chapter ii. might lead some readers to the conclusion that my views
 are identical with those set forth in the article in question, I think
 it well to state (_a_) that I only postulate of certain early metrical
 romances an origin which Herr Brugger apparently attributes to _all_
 Arthurian romances, prose or verse; (_b_) that when Herr Brugger
 speaks of _origin_ he uses the word loosely, and in a _secondary_
 sense, whereas I use it in a _primary_; _e.g._ to say that a story
 which reached French writers through a Breton source may therefore
 be accurately described as of Breton origin is, in my opinion, both
 inaccurate and misleading, especially in the face of Professor
 Foerster's strongly reiterated denials of an insular Arthurian
 _romantic_ tradition. The immediate source of the French writers does
 not solve for us the problem of the origins of Arthurian tradition; it
 is a mistake to employ an argument, or use terminology, confounding
 two distinct questions.



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]



CHAPTER VII

THE PROSE LANCELOT--THE LOVES OF LANCELOT AND GUINEVERE


In the previous chapter I remarked that the time, and the material, for
a really critical study of the prose _Lancelot_ were not yet ripe, and
that I should, therefore, confine myself to the discussion of the more
striking features of the story, _i.e._ the _Enfances_, the _liaison_
with Guinevere, and the connection with the Grail Quest. These form
what we may call the persistent element in the completed _Lancelot_
legend; the great mass of adventures filling in the framework, varying
(as we shall presently see) so considerably, that till we have some
idea of the growth and various redactions of the story it is hopeless
to attempt to criticise them.

Certain remarks, however, we can safely make. The story as we have it
at present is marked by a constant repetition of similar incidents.
I have already alluded to one, the love-trance. What we may perhaps
consider an exaggeration of this _motif_, the love-madness, also
occurs more than once and has affected the _Tristan_ story. This is
certainly not an original feature, but I think it is a question whether
the source be the _Chevalier au Lion_ or the _Prophecies of Merlin_;
personally I incline to the latter solution, and think the name of
Merlin's wife, Guendolen, may have suggested its introduction into the
_Lancelot_ story.[114]

Another incident of frequent repetition is the release of the hero
from prison in order that he may attend a tournament. Of this we have
at least three instances: the version of the _Charrette_, where it
is the wife of the seneschal, his jailor, who assists him; and two
belonging specially to the prose _Lancelot_. In one instance it is from
the prison of the Dame de Malehault that he attends the tournament
and returns, as in the _Charrette_; in the other he is freed from the
prison of the three queens by the daughter of the Duc de Rochedon, and
does not return. This latter also corresponds with his being freed
from the prison of Meleagant by the daughter of King Baudemagus,
whom Malory, doubtless under the influence of the _Charrette_ story,
substitutes in his translation for the heiress of Rochedon.

Again we find that certain adventures, some of considerable importance,
are related in some versions of the story while they are omitted in
others, but in the absence of a critical and comparative edition
it is impossible to say which of the great mass of adventures now
composing the prose _Lancelot_ belonged to the original redaction. Nor
can this again be satisfactorily settled till we have determined the
mutual relation between the _Grand S. Graal_, the _Queste_, and the
_Lancelot_. In short, the _Lancelot_ problem involves a number of minor
problems of extreme intricacy, and till these be solved we only stand
on the threshold of Arthurian criticism.[115]

A point in which it appears to me that we have a suggestion of the
original tale, expanded from a source foreign to that tale, is in the
account of the expedition undertaken to recover Lancelot's ancestral
kingdom from the hands of King Claudas. There is no doubt that the hero
should, as a matter of poetical justice, regain his inheritance, and in
the _Lanzelet_ we find it summarily recorded that he does so,[116] but
under entirely different circumstances from those recorded in the prose
_Lancelot_. The latter account is of extreme length, and apparently a
free imitation of the Arthurian expeditions of the _Chronicles_; the
incident of Frollo's defeat before Paris is certainly borrowed from
Geoffrey or his translators. As it now stands the incident is lacking
in point and practically unnecessary to the story, since Lancelot
prefers to continue Arthur's knight rather than become a sovereign
in his own right, and therefore bestows the lands on his cousins and
bastard half-brother. The retention of a feature which evolution has
thus robbed of its significance appears to afford evidence both of the
original independence of the tale and also of the priority of Ulrich
von Zatzikhoven's version.

Leaving on one side then the minor adventures into which the successive
redactions have introduced considerable variation, we will turn to that
feature of the story which, practically unvarying in form, appears
to offer us a fairer prospect of arriving at some real and definite
conclusion--the love of Lancelot for the wife of his liege lord.
Setting aside the many minor questions to which the subject gives rise,
it seems to me that the main problem of the amours of Lancelot and
Guinevere is, Do they represent the latest form of an original feature
of the story, or are we to consider them as an addition to the tale, an
element imported into it under the influence of the popular _Tristan_
legend?

This much is certain, there is no literary evidence of growth in the
story; either it is non-existent, as in the _Lanzelet_, or complete,
fully developed, and decked out in all the artificialities and
refinements of _Minne-dienst_, as in the _Charrette_. As we noted in
our discussion of the latter poem, Chrétien evidently credits his
audience with a previous knowledge of the relations between the queen
and his hero; he nowhere hints that he is about to tell them something
new, nor does he offer any explanation why Lancelot rather than Gawain,
who, as the _Merlin_ informs us, was 'the queen's knight,' should
achieve the rescue of his liege lady. There can be no doubt that he was
dealing with a situation thoroughly familiar to, and understood by, his
hearers.

A point which we are much tempted to overlook in the criticism of
Arthurian romance is the length of time intervening between the period
at which the events recorded are supposed to have happened, and the
earliest known literary record of those events. If we estimate this
intervening period as five centuries, we are speaking well within the
mark. It is obvious that we have here ample time for forgetfulness,
dislocation, or rearrangement of the original legend. Yet that that
legend survived I hold for certain. Had Arthur been completely
forgotten, the immense popularity achieved by the romances of his
cycle would constitute a literary phenomenon practically unique; the
seed that in the twelfth century burst into such glorious flower had
been germinating for ages. The question is, what was the nature of
that seed--what the relation of the original Arthurian legend to the
completed Arthurian romance?

On this point it behoves us to tread warily, and to avoid dogmatising.
I have suggested elsewhere that probably the historic germ of the
Arthurian legend is to be found in his fights with the Saxons,
his betrayal by his wife and nephew, and his death in battle with
the latter. Certainly there is a genuine historic element in the
account of his wars; and it is significant that the older Arthurian
chroniclers--Geoffrey of Monmouth and his translators--all agree in
relating at considerable length the story of Guinevere's betrayal of
her husband; while the Welsh tradition, which does not know Lancelot,
is even more emphatic on the subject of her infidelity.[117]

We must remember that, alike in Geoffrey, Wace, and Layamon, the
account of Guinevere's relations with Mordred is totally different to
that familiar to us through Malory, and borrowed by him from the _Mort
Artur_. In the latter, the queen is no accomplice in Mordred's treason,
but resists his advances _vi et armis_, barricading herself in the
Tower of London, where the traitor vainly besieges her.

In the chronicles the whole position is different: they shall speak for
themselves. This is Wace's account:

    '_Que Mordret fist en Engleterre
    La roine sot et oï_,
           *       *       *       *       *
    _A Evroïc ert à sejor,
    En pensé fu et en tristor.
    Membra lui de la vilenie
    Que por Mordret se fu honie;
    Le roi avoit deshonoré
    Et son neveu Mordret amé,
    Contre loi l'avoit esposée,
    S'in estoit honie et dampnée;
    Mius vausist morte estre que vive,
    Mult en estoit morne et pensive.
    A Karlion s'en est fuie,
    S'in entra en une abaïe,
    Iloc devint none velée;
    Tote sa vie i fu celée.
    Ne fu oïe, ne véue,
    Ne fu trovée, ne séue.
    Por la vergogne del mesfait
    Et del pécié qu'ele avoit fait._'--_Brut_, ii. ll. 13607-30.

In the corresponding passage, Geoffrey of Monmouth gives as his
authorities 'Breton' tradition and the clerk Walter of Oxford (cf. note
to above passage). Layamon in his account is even more severe towards
the guilty pair:

    '_Arður bi-tahte
    al þat he ahte.
    Moddrade and þere quene
    þat heom was iquene.
    þat was ufele idon
    þat heo iboren weoren.
    þis lond heo for-radden
    mid ræuðen uniuo[gh]en.
    and a þan ænden heom seolven
    þe wurse gon iscenden.
    þat heo þer for-leoseden
    lif and heore saulen.
    and ædder seoððe laðen
      nauer ælche londe.
    þat nauer na m[=a] nalde.
    sel bede beoden for heore saule._'

    _Brut_, Layamon, Madden's ed., ll. 25500-14.[118]

In the passage corresponding to that quoted above from Wace, Layamon
adds the detail, that none knew the manner of the queen's death,
_whether she had drowned herself_:

    '_nuste hit mon to soðe.
    whaðer heo weore on deðe
    (and ou [gh]eo hinne ende)[119]
    þa heo seolf weore
    isunken in þe watere._'--ll. 28481-85.

From these passages it is abundantly clear that Guinevere was no
victim of treachery, but a willing sinner; and that the tradition of
her infidelity to her husband existed prior to the formation of the
Arthurian romantic cycle.

Granting, then, that the feature formed part of the early Arthurian
legend, are we to consider that the version given by the chronicles
faithfully represents the original tradition, and that it was
Mordred who was Guinevere's original lover? I think not. It is an
extremely curious feature of the problem, that though in each of the
pseudo-historic versions Guinevere, as we have seen, is genuinely in
love with Mordred, and is roundly condemned by the chroniclers for
her conduct, in no single one of the Arthurian _romances_ is there
any trace of the slightest affection existing between them. Mordred,
save as traitor in the final scenes, plays no rôle in the story; he
is never represented as a _persona grata_ at court; in one important
version, as we shall see, the queen dislikes him because she suspects
his true relation to Arthur. Guinevere's moral character is held to be
untarnished, even by her _liaison_ with Lancelot.

I suspect that we have here to deal with a lapse of tradition.
Mordred is not the original lover, but he represents him; and between
that original lover and Lancelot there intervenes a period in which
Guinevere's lapse from virtue was smoothed over, and partially
forgotten. It is certainly remarkable that in each of the three great
prose branches, the _Merlin_,[120] the _Tristan_, and the _Lancelot_,
Guinevere's moral character is apparently unaffected by her conduct
with Lancelot. The compilers all agree in extolling her as the noblest
of queens and best of women. Even so aggressively virtuous and clerical
a romance as the prose _Perceval li Gallois_, though quite aware of the
connection, regards Guinevere in a favourable light--indeed, as morally
superior to Arthur! Nor can we quote the _Queste_ as representing the
opposite view; true, Lancelot is blamed for his relations with the
queen, but Guinevere, when she appears upon the scene, is treated with
marked respect, and the reader has an uncomfortable suspicion that
the writer objected to her rather as woman than as wife,--he objects
to the sex as a whole, only forgiving Perceval's sister on account of
her virginity. It seems clear that if the character of Guinevere has,
among the Welsh, been handed down to posterity under the unfavourable
light in which Professor Rhys tells us she is popularly regarded, this
must be due _either_ to a tradition emanating from an earlier and
healthier state of society, when conjugal infidelity was not regarded
with complacency, _or_ to a later and more enlightened verdict on her
relations with Lancelot, but in no case can it be due to the influence
of those who told the story of these relations.

The second cause will, I think, account for the nineteenth-century
presentment of Guinevere's character; we judge her on the grounds of
her relations with Lancelot, which we regard as blameworthy, though not
undeserving of sympathy--in fact, we do but emphasise Malory's verdict.

But this does not account for the Welsh tradition, which, as I have
before pointed out, knows practically nothing of Lancelot; that must
rest upon other grounds, and I believe it rests upon the tradition
preserved to us in the Mordred story.

What this original tradition was, we can now only surmise; it belonged
to a period of which but few and fragmentary traces survive, but I
think that most probably the primitive story ascribed the rôle of
lover to Gawain. I made this suggestion some four years ago,[121]
and subsequent study has shown me nothing to induce me to alter my
opinion, though it has suggested sundry important modifications.

I think now that Gawain and Mordred really represent the two sides of
one original personality; and that a personality very closely connected
with early Celtic tradition.

What the exact nature of the relation between Gawain and early Irish
mythic tradition may be we cannot yet say: that such a relation exists
is practically beyond doubt.[122]

Among the characteristic features of the early Irish heroes with
whom Gawain is connected, we find the following: Adventurous hero
and nephew on the female side to royal centre of cycle (Cuchulinn
and Diarmid[123]); son to that uncle (Cuchulinn); lover of uncle's
wife, eloping with her (Diarmid); deadly combat between father and
son (Cuchulinn and Conlaoch). This latter incident I believe to be
of greater importance in heroic-mythic tradition than has yet been
realised. As I interpret it, the father and son combat in heroic
tradition really represents the 'slayer who shall himself be slain,'
the prehistoric combat of the '_Golden Bough_' (to which I have
referred in chap. v.) influenced by the doctrine of re-birth, as set
forth by Mr. Nutt in vol. ii. of the _Voyage of Bran_, _i.e._ it is a
conflict of the god with his re-born and re-juvenated self, and as such
has a very real place in Celtic tradition.

As we see above, we do not at present possess a version in which all
these characteristics are united in one hero, but they might very well
be so united. I think that the earlier Gawain was at once Arthur's
nephew and son by his sister,[124] adventurous hero of the court, lover
of the queen, and eventually slayer of his father-uncle.[125]

Very probably in the original story there was some such device as the
beauty-spot of Diarmid, which aroused involuntary passion in every
woman who beheld him; or the love-potion of the Tristan story; a device
whereby the earlier tellers of these tales secured sympathy for the
lovers, without lowering the character of the husband, so that Gawain,
no less than Diarmid and Tristan, would be regarded as a gallant and
sympathetic figure.

But the peculiar line of evolution followed by the Arthurian story,
the strongly ethical and Christian character which it early assumed
(due probably to the heathen belief of the historic Arthur's genuine
antagonists, the Saxons), made a change necessary, if Gawain was to
preserve his position as leading hero of the legend, and I now think
it most probable that that change was effected by divesting Gawain of
the characteristics incompatible with his later position, and bestowing
them on another personality, created for the purpose, since they could
not altogether be dropped out of the story. It is significant that, as
I remarked above, the earliest tradition gives Gawain no brother save
Mordred, and Layamon remarks emphatically, '_he never had any other_.'

Further, I suspect, that exactly the same process took place with
regard to Guinevere, and that we have a survival of it in the person of
that mysterious lady, the false Guinevere.

I would therefore modify my original views on the subject, by saying
that I now think that though Gawain was Guinevere's original lover,
Lancelot did not succeed him in that rôle, in fact that Lancelot does
not represent the original lover at all, that that tradition is now
represented by the Mordred story, and that there was a period in the
evolution of the legend, preceding the introduction of Lancelot into
the cycle, during which the tradition of Guinevere's voluntary betrayal
of her husband was dropped, and she was regarded in an altogether
favourable light.

The invention of the Lancelot love-story, which I think we must
regard as in its origin an invention, was probably brought about by
two causes, the growth of _Minne-dienst_, and the popularity of the
_Tristan_ story.

To be absolutely accurate, I think we ought to consider it as
_invented_ to satisfy the demands of the first, and _developed_ under
the influence of the second. That it is, as some writers have held, a
mere imitation of the _Tristan_ story, I do not think, rather it is
marked by certain complex characteristics which cannot be explained on
the hypothesis of other than a dual source. Thus it is impossible not
to feel that the relations of the lovers are dictated by the rules of a
conventional etiquette rather than by the impulse of an overmastering
passion. Even in the scene in which Lancelot first reveals his love to
the queen, there is no touch of genuine passion or self-abandonment;
the confession has been foreseen and expected, and you feel that
Guinevere has carefully regulated her conduct in accordance with the
etiquette prescribed for such an occasion.

In the _Charrette_, this artificial character is strongly marked;
Lancelot's bearing becomes absolutely grovelling in its humility.
The fact that he has been guilty of a momentary hesitation before
mounting the cart is regarded by his capricious lady as a deadly
offence against the rules of love, and resented accordingly, while
Lancelot is so overcome by the assumed indifference of the queen that
he promptly attempts suicide. Compare this with the story of Gawain
and Orgeluse in the _Parzival_. Gawain is heartily in love with the
lady, who treats him, not merely with indifference, but with absolute
insolence--insolence to which Gawain opposes the most serene and
unruffled courtesy, till the lady comes to her senses, when he reads
her a well-deserved lecture on the correct behaviour due to a knight
from a well-bred lady. Gawain is quite as well aware of the rules of
the game as Lancelot, but understands how to play it with becoming
dignity, and remain master of the situation.

There are moments in the Lancelot-Guinevere story when one wonders
whether the whole business be not as platonic and artificial as the
love-rhapsodies of the would-be poets of mediæval Italy, or of certain
of the troubadours; but the night interview in the _Charrette_,
the story of Lancelot's relations with King Pelles's daughter, and
Guinevere's frantic jealousy, together with the final scene of
discovery, forbid this charitable assumption.

Again, as I remarked above, the problem is complicated by the high
character ascribed to Guinevere, and the absolute lack of any real
condemnation of her relations with Lancelot. This is carried so
far that even after the final discovery the kingdom of Britain is
threatened by the Pope with an interdict unless Arthur will consent to
take back his faithless wife; while throughout the war with Lancelot
the sympathies of the reader are asked for the knight, not for the
king. Nothing could well be lower than the morality of the _Lancelot_
story as it now stands: the cynical indifference of what we may call
the 'secular' sections, on the one hand, coupled with the false and
wholly sickly pseudo-morality of the Grail sections on the other,
cannot but be utterly distasteful to any healthy mind. For my own part,
I must needs think the immense popularity of the _Lancelot-Grail_
romances wholly undeserved.

Another point which is often overlooked is the discrepancy of age
between Lancelot and the queen; the hero's birth takes place some
considerable time after the marriage of Arthur and Guinevere. In the
final war with Arthur we are told that Lancelot is twenty-one years
Gawain's junior, this latter being seventy,[126] while Arthur is ninety
years old! It is quite clear that we have here no tale of the genuine
spontaneous love of youth and maiden such as we find in Tristan and
Iseult, but rather the account of the _liaison_ between a young knight
and a lady, his superior in years and station.

All these discrepancies and difficulties in the _Lancelot_ story can, I
believe, be best explained on the lines above suggested. The original
story of Guinevere's infidelity had been dropped out of the legend,
a reminiscence only surviving in the account of Mordred's treachery.
Shortly after the middle of the twelfth century the tone given to
courtly society by certain influential princesses, among them Eleanor
of Aquitaine and England, and her daughter, Marie de Champagne,
demanded the introduction into the popular Arthurian story of a love
element, conceived after the conventions of the day. Doubtless the
popularity of the older _Tristan_ story was an element in the matter,
but we must, I think, guard carefully against regarding the one as an
imitation of the other; in colouring and characteristics the tales are,
as I said above, diametrically opposed.[127]

Why Lancelot was selected as the queen's lover is a question which it
is extremely difficult to answer with any certainty. When I treated
the subject in my _Legend of Sir Gawain_, I suggested that he simply
took the place of Gawain here, as elsewhere. That may have been the
case, but the fact that, as I now think, we have distinct evidence of
an intervening period, or rather of intervening stages, between the
stories, somewhat militates against this idea. The choice may have
been determined by quite simple considerations. It is noticeable that
in each of the poems in which Chrétien mentions Lancelot previous to
the _Charrette_ he places him third in the list of Arthur's knights; in
_Erec_ the two first are Gawain and Erec; in _Cligés_ they are Gawain
and Perceval. None of the three here named would be available: Gawain
from his relationship alike to Arthur and to Mordred, besides the fact
that the character he early acquired as 'the Maidens' Knight' rather
militated against the exclusive fidelity requisite for the post; Erec
was already provided with a lady-love; Perceval was impracticable,
not so much from the ascetic character ascribed to him, which was
probably[128] a later accretion, as from his essentially uncourtly
manners, and very slight connection with Arthur's household. It may
very well be that at the 'psychological moment' Lancelot, by his
new-won position in the cycle, was the one hero who approved himself
fitted for the rôle, and thus reached in the character of the queen's
lover his final evolution as an Arthurian knight.

Again, as I suggested in discussing the _Lanzelet_, it may be that some
peculiarity in his relations with his mysterious protectress gave the
required suggestion. With the knowledge at our disposal the question
cannot be definitely answered.

But the central idea once conceived, the process of evolution proceeded
merrily: doubts, hesitation, despondency, on the part of the hero,
gracious advances on that of the queen; advances on the part of other
ladies, jealousy on the part of Guinevere; despair and madness of
Lancelot; reconciliation, suspicion, detection, danger, deliverance,
all the well-known formulæ of such a love-tale are employed, well
interspersed with the knightly adventures of Lancelot and other
companions of the Round Table. Such a story could be expanded, _ad
infinitum_, and there is no doubt that it was expanded to an inordinate
length, as we shall find when the day comes for a critical edition of
the various redactions of the prose _Lancelot_.

Meanwhile, what of the romance which had given the initial impulse to
the formation of the Lancelot story, the _Tristan_? As a matter of fact
the _Tristan_ was in the unenviable position of a Frankenstein. It had
created, or rather helped to create, a monster which was its eventual
destruction. So far as incidents go, the _Lancelot_ has borrowed but
little from the _Tristan_; the episode of the blood-drops, which betray
the nocturnal meeting of Guinevere and Lancelot in the _Charrette_,
is generally admitted to be borrowed from the similar episode in the
_Tristan_ poems, while the version given by Hartmann von Aue of the
abduction of Guinevere shows points of contact with that of Iseult
by Gandîn, but the incidental parallels between the stories are in
reality very slight. Turn, however, to the prose _Tristan_, and you
find the influence of the _Lancelot_ absolutely dominant. Following the
example of Lancelot, Tristan believes himself to have lost the favour
of his adored queen, flies to the woodland, where he goes mad; attempts
suicide; Iseult pours out her woes in letters to Guinevere, who is
regarded as the noblest of queens, and a recognised authority on love!
Guinevere invites the lovers to Arthur's court; Lancelot places his
castle of Joyous Garde at their disposal. The details of the beautiful
old love poem, the poignant tragedy of Tristan and Iseult, are lost
sight of. In a fragmentary form they still exist, but are buried out of
sight underneath the great mass of Arthurian accretion. It is no longer
the love of Tristan for Iseult which is the central interest of the
story, but the rivalry between Tristan and Lancelot, which of the two
shall be reckoned 'the best knight in the world.'

Dr. Wechssler, in his study on the various redactions of the
Lancelot-Grail cycle, points out the manner in which the two versions
of the _Tristan_ have been worked over and modified so as to bring
them more into harmony with the _Lancelot_.[129] But how thoroughgoing
was this modification, and how disastrous to the older story, can
only be understood by a first-hand study of the texts. An interesting
point for future criticism to determine will be whether there was ever
an earlier, and independent, prose _Tristan_, or whether the prose
versions of this tale are not all posterior to and dependent upon the
_Lancelot_. I do not think that any question can here arise as to the
priority of the poetical relative to the prose form.

To sum up the conclusions arrived at in these pages, I would suggest
that the order of Guinevere's lovers, so far as can be determined from
the surviving Arthurian tradition, was as follows:

1. GAWAIN.--This being indicated by Gawain's close connection with
kindred Celtic legends; traces of the relation surviving in the
accounts given in the _Merlin_ of Gawain as the 'queen's knight,' and
in passages of Chrétien's _Perceval_, Wolfram's _Parzival_, and early
English romances.[130]

2. MORDRED.--Representing a period when such a relationship was held
incompatible with Gawain's character as chivalrous hero, and the more
unamiable features of the primitive conception were transferred to
another character who was regarded as Gawain's only brother. The later
stages of this period are preserved in the _Chronicles_.

3. Intervening period wherein Guinevere undergoes same process as
Gawain, and false Guinevere is evolved. The queen's character is
regarded as irreproachable and Mordred as an unwelcome suitor. Strong
traces of this period remain, both in the earlier metrical and prose
romances, and complicate the subsequent presentment.

4. LANCELOT.--His introduction in this character being due (_a_) to
social conditions in courtly circles, (_b_) to desire to create within
the Arthurian cycle a love-tale which should rival in popularity the
well-known and independent _Tristan_ story. Mordred, however, remains
in the story, and he, rather than Lancelot, should be considered as
representing the original 'infidelity-motif.'[131]



CHAPTER VIII

THE PROSE LANCELOT--LANCELOT AND THE GRAIL


We now approach the most difficult and complicated part of an
exceptionally difficult and complicated question; rather, to be more
accurate, we are now confronted with the union of two questions, each
of them, in a high degree, intricate and obscure. We have not yet
succeeded in solving the problems connected with the evolution of the
Grail romances; we can scarcely be said to have begun the examination
of the _Lancelot_ legend; the union of the two might well appear to
present such insuperable difficulties that the critic might shrink
from grappling at close quarters with so formidable a task. And yet
it may well be that this union of the two legends, which at the first
glance appears so seriously to increase our difficulties, is precisely
that factor which shall play the most important part in their final
solution; that inasmuch as the _Lancelot_ legend was the dominant
factor in the later cyclic development of Arthurian romances, the
disentangling of this particular thread will be the clue which sets
free the other members of the cycle, and enables them to fall once more
into their original and relative positions.

The elements composing the Grail problem are so well known that here I
need do no more than briefly recapitulate them. The Grail romances are
practically divided into two families: that dealing with the history
of the relic--the _Early History_ romances as they are very generally
called; and that dealing with the search for the relic, the _Queste_,
which latter family is again sharply divided into two sections
differentiated from each other by the personality of the hero--the
Perceval and Galahad _Questes_. I am not sure whether we ought not to
go a step further and recognise a third clearly defined family, that of
the Gawain _Queste_. Mr. Nutt in his _Studies on the Legend of the Holy
Grail_[132] partly recognises this, but does not, I think, attribute
sufficient importance to the matter, regarding Gawain as an understudy
of Perceval. I incline to think that before the question is finally
solved we shall require to study very closely the variants which regard
Gawain as Grail hero, and compare them with the _Perceval_ versions. I
am not sure that we shall find the result quite what we expect!

So far criticism has confined itself to the question of the relation
existing between the _Early History_ and _Queste_ versions, and that
between the two main families of the _Queste_. In this latter case
the general consensus of opinion is to regard Perceval, whose story
is marked by certain definite and widely spread folk-lore features,
as an earlier Grail hero than Galahad, whose _Queste_ is strongly
allegorising and mystical in character.

It is this latter _Queste_ which here mainly concerns us, but we shall
find that before we are in a position to examine it closely we must
deal with certain features both of the Gawain and Perceval variants.

The _Gawain_ versions will not detain us long. There is, correctly
speaking, no definite _Gawain-Grail_ romance, but we find records of
Gawain's visits to the Grail castle scattered throughout the latter
part of the _Conte del Graal_, _Diu Krône_ (where he is really the
Grail hero), prose _Lancelot_, and Dutch _Lancelot_ (this latter, as
we shall see, differing in very important particulars from the prose
_Lancelot_). In each case these adventures are marked by peculiarly
wild and fantastic features, sometimes apparently borrowed from the
hero's feats at the _Château Merveil_, as recorded by Chrétien and
Wolfram, sometimes entirely independent of those feats, but strongly
reminiscent of Perceval's experiences in the Grail castle. In the
distinctively _Lancelot_ romances, where Gawain, Lancelot, and Bohort
all attempt the adventures of Corbenic, Gawain is the first to do so,
and his experiences are repeated, with a more fortunate result, in the
case of the other two. The _Grand S. Graal_, which gives an account of
the founding of Corbenic, and the establishment of its marvels, states
that none are to escape with their lives till _Gawain_ shall come, and
he shall receive shame and dishonour.[133] This same romance makes
Gawain a descendant of Joseph of Arimathea.

I think it is quite clear that the Grail castle as depicted in
the later romances is really a combination of the features of two
originally distinct accounts, the Grail castle of the earlier Perceval
story, and the _Château Merveil_ of Gawain legend. The marvellous
features which the Galahad-Lancelot _Queste_ emphasises have clearly
been borrowed from the Gawain romances, and are therefore to be
considered as younger than these.

Dr. Wechssler's study, _Über die verschiedenen Redaktionen des Robert
von Borron zugeschriebenen Graal-Lancelot-Cyklus_, to which I have
previously referred, is of value in helping us to the next stage of our
investigation. The writer points out that the redactors of the prose
romances we possess were familiar with two compilations, practically
covering the entire ground of Arthurian romance, one of which, the
earlier, was ascribed to Robert de Borron, the other, the later, to
Walter Map; or rather, as the author is careful to write throughout,
_pseudo_-Borron and _pseudo_-Map.[134] The original cycle, which the
writer designates _A._, consisted of _Livre del Graal_,[135] _Merlin_,
_Suite Merlin_, _Lancelot_, _Queste_, and _Mort Artur_, but only traces
of the _Borron_ cycle remain, the romances as we have them belonging to
the pseudo-_Map_ redaction.[136]

Further, Dr. Wechssler claims to have detected clear traces of two
subsidiary cycles formed by selections from the original; redaction
_B._ consisting of the _Livre del Graal_, the _Merlin_, and _Suite
Merlin_, and the _Queste_ and _Mort Artur_. The redaction _B._ he
considers the earlier shortened version of the pseudo-Borron cycle.[137]

A still later and shortened redaction was composed of the _Merlin_ and
_Suite Merlin_, _Queste_ and _Mort Artur_; this also being attributed
to the pseudo-Borron.[138]

According to Dr. Wechssler the distinguishing mark which separates the
pseudo-Borron from the pseudo-Map cycle is the introduction into the
former of the personages of the _Tristan_ legend absent from the Map
cycle.

This is very clear, and very interesting, but let us wait a minute
before we examine it, and see how, in the hands of its own author,
the theory works out. The study to which I have just referred was
published in 1895; in 1898 another study appeared from the same
pen, this time dealing exclusively with the Grail romances,[139] in
which Dr. Wechssler practically adopted the standpoint of Professor
Birch-Hirschfeld, that the Grail is _ab initio_ a Christian symbol, but
at the same time endeavoured to harmonise this view with that which
regards the Grail as originally a heathen talisman, while, in the same
way, he claimed to discover a _viâ media_ between the conflicting
variants of the _Queste_, presenting us, as the result, with a curious
composite hero, who was named Galahad, but whose story was the story of
Perceval.

I do not know if the author was himself really satisfied with the
result of his ingenuity; I am convinced no other student of the Grail
romances was; but the interest of the study for us lies in this,
how did a scholar who three years before had published a really
sound, solid, and valuable piece of criticism, such as that on the
Grail-Lancelot cycle, come to wander so far astray in the quagmire of
pure hypothesis and unfounded assumption? Simply and solely, I believe,
because it had never occurred to Dr. Wechssler that the _Lancelot_
romances _could_ be associated with any _Queste_ other than the Galahad
_Queste_. He saw, and saw rightly, that the _Lancelot_ story played a
very important rôle in the cyclic evolution of the Arthurian romance;
he saw that it was closely connected with a Grail _Queste_, and never
suspecting that the hero of that _Queste_ could be other than Galahad,
while at the same time he recognised the priority of certain elements
of the Perceval story, he endeavoured, with a fatal result, to combine
the two, and evolve such a _Queste_ as would suit the earlier redaction
of the _Lancelot_ story.

And yet the key to the truth was in his hand all the time, had he but
known it. He knew M. Paulin Paris's '_Romans de la Table Ronde_';
on p. 87 of vol. iv. the writer quotes a passage from a MS. of the
_Bibliothèque Nationale_, to which I have previously referred, but
which is of such paramount importance for the question before us that I
make no apology for repeating it here: '_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_
(c'est-à-dire se rapportent à Perceval[140]) _qu'il acheva li grant
queste. Et li contes Perceval meismes est une branche del haut conte
del Graal qui est chiés de tos les contes_' (MS. 751, fol. 144-48).

To this quotation M. Paulin Paris added the remark, 'Mais dans la
_Quête du Saint Graal_, Perceval n'est plus le héros qui découvre
le Graal et accomplit les dernières aventures. Galaad, le chevalier
vierge, fils naturel de Lancelot, est substitué au _Perceval_ des
dernières laisses de Lancelot. La manie des prolongements aura conduit
à ces modifications des premières conceptions. Et c'est la difficulté
de distinguer ces retouches successives qui a donné à la critique tant
de fils à retordre.'

The position could scarcely be more clearly stated to-day; one can
only regret that this luminous hint of the great French scholar
should have remained so long unfruitful. When the passage first
attracted my attention, which it did some years ago, I made a note
of it as important for the theory of the early evolution of the
_Perceval_ story, but not till I had read Dr. Wechssler's study of the
_Grail-Lancelot_ cycles did its immense importance as evidence for
the evolution of the Arthurian cycle, as a whole, dawn upon me. Yet
here we have a piece of evidence of the very highest value, a direct
and categorical statement that at one period, and that an advanced
one (otherwise it would not be termed 'le _grant_ conte'), of its
evolution, the _Lancelot_ legend was connected with and subordinate to
the _Perceval_ story, and that in its full and complete Grail-Queste
form.

In other words, the distinction between the cycles respectively
attributed to Borron and to Map is not only the presence or absence
of the personages of the _Tristan_ story (as Dr. Wechssler supposes),
but the much more important and radical distinction that, in the first
the _Queste_ was originally a Perceval, in the second always a Galahad
_Queste_. It is surprising that this distinction had not occurred to
the original framer of the thesis, any one familiar with the genuine
Borron romances must be aware that the _Queste_ they presuppose _is_
a Perceval _Queste_. Probably the disinclination, to which I have
referred above, to connect Lancelot with any Grail hero save his own
son had very much to do with the matter; further, I do not think that
Dr. Wechssler had formed a clear idea of the process of evolution
of the cycle he postulated, which he represents as progressing by
contraction, _i.e._ the earliest form being the fullest, or why that
cycle should have been connected with the name of Robert de Borron. In
fact, he reserves the discussion of the questions concerning original
formation for another study.

Now I would submit that the rational progress of evolution is by
expansion, not by contraction, and that the name of Robert de Borron
became associated with a cycle representing the _ensemble_ of Arthurian
romance because there was a smaller cycle which was really the work of
the genuine Robert de Borron, which smaller cycle formed the germ of
the later and more extended body of romance.[141]

Scholars have long ago recognised that the three works attributed to
Robert de Borron, and which, as we possess them, probably represent
prose versions of that writer's original poems, are closely connected
with each other, and have every appearance of having been intended to
form one consecutive work. These three are the _Joseph of Arimathea_,
_Merlin_, and _Perceval_, which latter is only represented by one MS.
and is what we generally call the 'Didot' _Perceval_.[142]

Now if we examine the Didot _Perceval_, as printed by Mr. Hucher in
vol. i. of _Le Saint Graal_, we shall find that the last twenty pages,
succeeding Perceval's achievement of the Grail Quest, are devoted to
Arthur's expedition to France, his conquest of Frollo and war with
Rome, succeeded by Mordred's treachery, the final battle and Arthur's
departure for Avalon--in fact, precisely the contents of the _Mort
Artur_, which, as we know, generally follows the _Queste_, only
related in a more concise and summary manner;[143] and one more in
accordance with the _Chronicles_ than is the case with the other prose
romances.

I think it is quite clear that the _Perceval_, whether in the original
form in which Borron wrote it or not, as we possess it, shows distinct
traces of having formed the concluding portion of a cycle.

It is quite obvious that a genuine Borron cycle, such as suggested
above, would contain the germ of later expansion. Thus the _Joseph of
Arimathea_ certainly appears to represent what we may perhaps call the
first draft of the _Grand S. Graal_. _Merlin_ was certainly expanded
into the _Merlin_ Vulgate and _Suite_. _Perceval_ represents _Queste_
and _Mort Artur_. Only the _Lancelot_ is unrepresented, and with that
I do not think the original 'Borron' cycle had anything to do.

The introduction of the _Lancelot_ probably belongs, as Dr. Wechssler
suggests, to a subsequent writer, who borrowed the more famous name,
to the pseudo-Borron; and from the quotation given by M. Paulin Paris,
I should think it likely that, at first, the juxtaposition of the
_Lancelot_ and _Perceval-Grail_ stories was purely external, and that
they did not affect each other by contamination. The Didot _Perceval_
may well have been the _Queste_ of the earliest pseudo-Borron, whether
or not it represents the _Queste_ of the genuine Borron cycle.[144]

But the growing popularity of the _Lancelot_ story would render such
a contamination inevitable, and I am strongly tempted to believe that
in that perplexing romance, the prose _Perceval li Gallois_, we have
the _Queste_ of a later pseudo-Borron cyclic redaction. The perplexing
features of this version are well known: the whole tone is highly
ecclesiastic, there are numerous references to an earlier Perceval
story, Lancelot plays an important rôle, yet Galahad is unknown, and
there are certain mysterious folk-lore features not met with elsewhere.
Hitherto no one has succeeded in satisfactorily placing this romance. I
would suggest that it represents the _Queste_ of a late pseudo-Borron
_Lancelot-Perceval-Grail_ cycle; and I am encouraged in this
supposition by the fact that this romance knows the Questing-Beast, a
mysterious creation only found in the _Suite Merlin_ and the _Tristan
Palamedes_ romances. Now the _Suite Merlin_ claims to be by Robert
de Borron, and the introduction of the _Tristan_ figures into the
Arthurian story is, as we saw above, held by Dr. Wechssler to be the
distinctive 'note' of the Borron-cycle.[145]

This conclusion is further strengthened when we examine the rôle
assigned to Lancelot in these two romances. In each case he is one
of the most distinguished knights at Arthur's court, but he is much
less _en évidence_ in the Didot _Perceval_ than in the _Perceval li
Gallois_. In the first-named romance he is represented as overthrowing
all the knights of the Round Table, till the appearance of Perceval,
by whom he is himself overthrown. He would thus appear to rank next to
the hero of the tale and to be the superior of Gawain. So far as we can
gather, the order of superiority runs thus: Perceval, Lancelot, Gawain,
Yvain. But he is, apparently, not of those who start on the Grail
quest; nor is there any indication of his _liaison_ with Guinevere. But
the author mentions among the knights '_le fiz à la fille à la femme de
Malehot_.'[146] We do not know the lady of Malehault save through the
medium of the prose _Lancelot_.

In the _Perceval li Gallois_ (_Perlesvaus_ Professor Heinzel prefers to
call it), Lancelot is one of the three best knights in the world, the
other two being Perceval and Gawain; he takes part in the Grail quest,
but on account of his sinful relations with Guinevere is not worthy to
behold the sacred talisman, which does not appear, even in a veiled
form, during his stay at the Fisher King's castle, whereas it appears
clearly to Gawain. The position, so far as Lancelot is concerned, is
thus nearer to the presentment of the Galahad _Queste_ than is the
Didot _Perceval_. This last-named, we have seen above, shows clear
indications of betraying a cyclic redaction; these indications, though
differing in form, are not less clear in the _Perceval li Gallois_.
The concluding passage runs thus: '_Après iceste estoire commence li
contes si comme Brians des Illes guerpi le roi Artus por Lancelot que
il n'aimoit mie et comme il aséura le roi Claudas qui le roi Ban de
Bénoic toli sa terre. Si parole cis contes comment il le conquist et
par quel manière, et si com Galobrus de la Vermeille lande vint à la
cort le roi Artus por aidier Lancelot, quas il estoit de son lignage
cist contes est mout lons et mout aventreus et poisanz._'[147]

In quoting this passage, Professor Heinzel remarks: 'Auch der
_Perlesvaus_ ist einem grösseren Romanwerk einverleibt, aus dem die
Handschrift von Mons den _Perlesvaus_ ausgeschrieben hat. Was ihm
folgte muss eine Art _Lancelot_ gewesen sein.'[148]

There is a further and interesting possibility before us. The compilers
may--in one instance, I think, we can show reason to believe that they
did--have incorporated the Chrétien _Perceval_ (or a version closely
akin to it) into their cycles as representing the _Queste_.

In the work of preparing these studies I felt that I ought to leave no
available version of the _Lancelot_ unexplored, and therefore undertook
to read carefully the immense compilation generally known as the Dutch
_Lancelot_. Well was it for me that I did not shrink from the task! I
had not read far before I began to suspect that the text represented
by this translation was, in every respect, a fuller and a better text
than that used by Dr. Sommer in his Malory collation; in the _Queste_
section in particular was this the case. In the succeeding chapters
I intend to go fully into what is, I believe, in the interests of
Arthurian criticism, a very important discovery. Here I will only say
that I eventually found that the text of the Dutch _Lancelot_, of the
printed version of the prose _Lancelot_ Lenoire, 1533 (which, as I
have remarked before, Dr. Sommer does not chronicle), and Malory's
_Lancelot_ and _Queste_ sections all stand together as representing a
much fuller and more accurate text than that of the prose _Lancelot_
1513, or the _Queste_ MSS. consulted by Dr. Furnivall for his edition
of that romance. Whether we have not here an important part of the
_un_shortened pseudo-Borron-_Lancelot_ into which the Map _Queste_ has
been introduced is a matter for careful investigation. The point to
which at the present moment I would draw attention is, that the Dutch
_Lancelot_ incorporates a very considerable section of a _Perceval_
romance, which bears a very close resemblance to Chrétien's poem, with
this curious difference, that it gives an account of the achieving of
the adventures named by the Grail messenger, which, so far as I know,
is found nowhere else. This section, which occupies over two thousand
lines, demands a special study, but for us its significance lies in
this that it seems to point to the conclusion that in the evolution of
a _Lancelot-Perceval_ cycle (the existence of which I think we may hold
for proven) the compilers allowed themselves considerable latitude in
the _Queste_ section. There were several Perceval _Questes_ to select
from, and they took which they preferred, even pressing the original,
manifestly independent, _Perceval_ romances into their service. I
suspect that this variation in the Perceval _Queste_ helped towards its
suppression in favour of the Galahad variant, which had the advantage
of existing only in one form, though the cause mainly operating was an
entirely different one.[149]

So far then we have traced the evolution of the _Lancelot_ story, and
found that at one period of its development, and that an advanced
period, it was connected with a Grail story, which regarded Perceval as
its hero and knew nothing of Lancelot's son, Galahad. How then did the
latter appear upon the scene, and in what light are we to regard the
romances dealing with him?

I have studied the Galahad _Queste_ closely, and have compared
versions gathered from widely different sources, French originals,
and translations, and I am distinctly of the opinion that we possess
the romance practically in its original form. It is a homogeneous
composition, it is not a compilation from different sources and by
different hands. There is no trace of an earlier and later redaction,
save only in the directly edifying passages, which in some cases appear
to have undergone amplification. The difference between the versions is
not that of incident or sequence, scarcely even of detail, but rather
of the superior clearness and coherence with which the incidents are
related in some of the versions as compared with others. I am strongly
inclined to think that there is no peculiarity in any of the _Queste_
MSS. which cannot quite well be ascribed to the greater or less
accuracy of the copyist, or his greater or less taste for discourses of
edification.

Nor is the _Queste_ by the same hand as was responsible for the final
moulding of the _Lancelot_ story; though so closely connected with,
indeed dependent upon, that story, it yet in many points stands in
flagrant contradiction with it, and there is little doubt that the
_Lancelot_ would gain greatly in coherence if the _Queste_ were
omitted, and the passages preparatory to it eliminated from the
original romance. These remarks apply also to the _Grand S. Graal_ in
its present form, though, as we shall see, this last named romance does
not stand on precisely the same footing as the _Queste_ with which it
is now closely connected.

The following facts seem to stand out clearly. Both these Grail
romances, the _Queste_ especially, depend _entirely_ for their interest
on Lancelot. They are the glorification of his race as that from which
the Grail Winner is predestined to spring. The genealogies, however
they may vary (as they do in the different versions), are all devoted
to this object. They are most closely connected with, and practically
presuppose each other; yet admitting, as I think we must admit, that
they do not represent the original form of the Grail story, they do not
produce the impression of romances which have been worked over with the
view of substituting a new hero for the one in whose honour the tale
was originally constructed.

Nevertheless in the case of the _Grand S. Graal_ we must, I think,
admit imitation; even as in the original Borron cycle the _Joseph of
Arimathea_ was designed as an introduction to the life and deeds of
the Grail Winner, Perceval, so in this, the latest form of the cycle,
the introduction to the _Queste_ is built upon and expanded from the
_Joseph_. The introduction is based upon and follows the lines of the
old introduction, but the _Queste_ is a new _Queste_.

Let us be quite clear on this point. Galahad may have in a measure
supplanted Perceval, but he has neither dispossessed nor robbed him.
He has taken over no one of his characteristics, no one of his feats.
Such traces of the Perceval story as remain are found in connection
with Perceval himself; he, too, achieves the Grail _Queste_. He has
undergone a change, and a change for the worse, but that was quite
as much due to the evolution of the Grail as a Christian talisman as
to the invention of Galahad. The hero of the Didot _Perceval_ and
_Perceval li Gallois_ is as inferior to the hero of Chrétien and
Wolfram as is the Perceval of the Galahad _Queste_. The truth is that
Perceval is still the Grail hero, but he shares that character with
another whose invention is due to special and easily discernible
causes.[150]

The point of view of the writer of the _Queste_ is not that of the
compilers of the _Lancelot_. As I remarked in the previous chapter,
the view taken by the _Lancelot_ of the relations between the hero and
the queen is frankly unmoral. Neither is blamed for his or her action,
neither is apparently conscious of wrong-doing. In the _Queste_
Lancelot's conscience is sorely vexed, and his sin insisted upon. The
compilers of the _Lancelot_ have a very courtly respect for women--the
author of the _Queste_ despises them utterly. The interest of the
_Lancelot_ lies in the relation between the sexes--the respective
duties of knight and lady--the theme which inspires the _Queste_ is
their abiding separation.

Again, compare the treatment of the various characters of the story in
the two respective sections. Next to Galahad and Perceval, the hero
of the _Queste_ is Bohort (Bors). But for a single youthful lapse he
yields in nothing to those doughty champions of celibacy: his purity,
alike of body and soul, is emphatically insisted upon; his confession
fills the priest who receives it with a fervour of admiration; yet
it is precisely this saintly youth who, in the section preceding and
following the _Queste_ (the _Lancelot_ and the _Mort Artur_), is the
confidant and go-between of Lancelot and Guinevere. It is Bohort who
seeks Lancelot at the secret bidding of the queen, Bohort who carries
love-tokens between them, who arranges meetings. It is he and Lionel
who consult the queen as to the delicate question of Lancelot's future
relations with the lady who has cured him from the illness caused by
drinking the poisoned spring; he who is the confidant of Guinevere's
indignation at the supposed love-affair between Lancelot and the maiden
of Escarloet; and if he tries to prevent the last fatal meeting between
them it is with no view of hindering a wrong to his lord Arthur, but
solely because he has reason to suspect the trap laid for the lovers.
The two presentments not simply fail to agree, but stand in flat
contradiction with each other.

Lionel, again, is throughout the _Lancelot_ a valiant knight, warmly
attached alike to his brother and to his cousin. Like Bohort he takes
Lancelot's part on every occasion, with him he quits the court when
the queen, in an access of jealousy, banishes Lancelot. When he is
finally slain both Bohort and Lancelot are overcome with grief. But the
_Queste_ paints him in the most repulsive colours: violent, brutal, and
unreasoning to a degree. He is so indignant with his brother for going
to the rescue of a maiden rather than of himself (when both are equally
in danger) that he does his best to kill him in revenge. He does kill
an unoffending hermit, and a fellow knight of the Round Table who would
intervene, and finally it needs a special interposition of Providence
to part the two brothers before a fatal issue to the conflict forced on
by Lionel has taken place.

Hector, Lancelot's half-brother, who in the later _Lancelot_ story
is one of the bravest and most distinguished knights of the court,
is in the _Queste_ held up to scorn and rebuke; while the author of
this romance has no colours too black in which to paint the character
of Gawain, who, though deposed from his position of chief hero, is,
throughout the _Lancelot_ proper, treated with the greatest respect. He
is entirely loved and trusted by king and queen, and if his valour is
in the long-run surpassed by that of Lancelot, the compiler is careful
to preserve his honour intact by pointing out, first, that he never
recovered from the severe wounds received in the war with Galehault,
second, that he was over twenty years Lancelot's senior. The final
conflict between them, the most deadly in which Lancelot was ever
engaged, was fought when Gawain was seventy-two and Arthur ninety-two
years of age; further, as we shall see presently, in some versions the
conclusion is more of the character of a drawn battle than of a defeat
for Gawain.[151]

It is, I think, quite clear that the Galahad-Grail romances are the
work of another hand than that responsible for the main body of the
_Lancelot_ cycle; and the work of one who was at small pains to
harmonise his story with the branches already existing. It is indeed
doubtful whether the writer had any thorough acquaintance with the
legend as a whole. It is noteworthy that the points of contact with
what we may perhaps call the 'secular' section are all restricted to
the _later_ part of the story, that commencing with what M. Paulin
Paris called the _Agravain_ section. Between the _Grand S. Graal_, the
Galahad _Queste_, and the later part of the _Lancelot_ there are a
number of what we may call cross-references, the precise value of which
will be very difficult to determine. But they do not stray outside a
certain limit--they are restricted to Lancelot, the Knight of the
Round Table, the queen's lover, and father of the Grail Winner--they
do not appear to know Lancelot the _protégé_ of the Lady of the Lake.
In this character the Grail romances ignore him, nor do they appear to
know anything of his most famous adventure, the freeing of Guinevere
from Meleagant.[152]

It is the later and not the earlier _Lancelot_ story which is known
to the writer of the _Queste_; and the more we study the romance the
plainer this becomes. The _Lancelot_ romance may really be divided
into two great divisions, the _Enfances_, _Charrette_, and _Galehault_
section, which is practically unaffected by the _Grail_ tradition,
though it shows evident signs of contact with the _Perceval_ story; and
the latter portion which (saving the _Mort Artur_, unaffected except by
the addition of the concluding _Queste_ paragraph, easily removed) has
been redacted under the influence of the Galahad-Grail accretion.

Till the versions concerned have been critically examined we cannot
determine the value or gauge the evidence of the matter common to
the _Lancelot_, _Grand S. Graal_, and _Queste_. The most noticeable
instances are the following: the keeping of the Grail at Castle
Corbenic, the founding of which is related in the _Grand S. Graal_;
the characters of King Pelles and his father, with regard to whom the
evidence varies,--as a rule, the character of the Fisher King appears
to be confined to the former, that of the Maimed King to the latter
(the author of the _Queste_ appears to have no idea that the two
characters are one and the same);--the daughter of King Pelles, and his
son Eliezer. This latter is, I think, peculiar to the Lancelot-Galahad
story, the Perceval versions do not know him. The adventure of the
broken sword borne by Eliezer, told both in _Lancelot_ and _Grand S.
Graal_, and achieved, though without satisfactory explanation, in
_Queste_.[153] The Boiling Fountain and Bleeding Tomb adventures,
also told in the two first, partly achieved in the _Lancelot_, and
achievement summarily announced in _Queste_. The Perilous Cemetery,
origin stated in _Grand S. Graal_, vainly attempted by Gawain and
Hector in _Lancelot_, final achievement barely recorded in _Queste_.

In these last instances the story may well have been in the _Lancelot_,
and taken over by the compiler of _Grand S. Graal_; the _Queste_ makes very
little of them; they only serve to keep up the connection between the
'secular' and 'religious' sections.

With regard to the Corbenic-Grail adventures, I am inclined, as I
said before, to look upon them as due to the influence of the Gawain
story, and as already existing, in a purely adventurous form, in the
_Lancelot_, before it was formally united to the Grail Quest.

On the whole, I decidedly lean to the opinion that _Grand S. Graal_ and
_Queste_ are by one and the same hand--the one based upon and expanded
from an older poem, the other a practically new invention, the two
being designed to replace the _Joseph of Arimathea_ and _Perceval_ of
the earlier Grail cycle. As I said above, the author was very little
concerned about the harmony of his work. So long as by a superficial
rearrangement and interpolation of incidental adventures he could
produce an appearance of harmony, he cared nothing at all about the
more important questions of continuity of treatment, and preservation
of tone and character. The result is that his work, which stands
practically as he left it, is in flagrant contradiction with the story
it is designed to complete.

But what was the motive which led to the setting aside of the earlier
Perceval _Queste_, and what the causes which determined the particular
form assumed by its successor?

I do not think they are difficult to detect.

During the later years of the twelfth and earlier years of the
thirteenth century we see two stories in process of gradual
evolution--the Perceval-Grail story and the Lancelot legend. One early
took a decidedly mystical and ecclesiastical bent, the other became
more and more worldly and secular. The two appear to have had an equal
hold on popular imagination, they early came into touch with each
other, but they never really blended. The _Lancelot_, as the younger,
borrowed at the outset certain features from the _Perceval_, but it
retained its own distinctive character; while the elder story slowly
changed, the Grail, at first a subordinate element in the story,
gradually but surely dominating the tale, which became more and more
ecclesiastical, while the hero became more and more conventional.[154]

But at a certain point it became evident that these lines of tradition
could no longer remain parallel, they must coalesce, or the one must
yield to the other. The Grail quest had become the most popular
adventure of Arthur's court, one after another the knights were being
drawn into the mystic circle; how could the most popular and most
valiant of the knights of the Round Table, for this Lancelot had now
become, remain outside the chosen group? It was plain that Lancelot
must take part in the Grail quest; it was equally plain that the first
knight of the court could not be allowed to come out of the ordeal with
any detriment to his prestige; yet the Grail demanded purity of life,
and Lancelot was the queen's lover. More, the queen's lover he must
remain or forfeit his hold on popular sympathy.

How was it possible to preserve intact at once Lancelot's superiority
and the purity of the Christian talisman? Only in one way: by giving
him a son who should achieve the quest and then vanish, leaving
Lancelot still _facile princeps_ among the knights of the Round Table,
with the added glory of having been the father of the Grail Winner.

But this son could not be the child of Guinevere. The offspring of a
guilty _liaison_ could not be the winner of the sacrosanct talisman;
yet Lancelot must be faithful to his queen--how solve this problem? The
story in its primitive form gave the hint for the required development.
Who more fitted to become the mother of the Grail Winner than the
fair maiden who filled the office of Grail-bearer?[155] The obvious
propriety of such a relationship was bound sooner or later to strike
the imagination of some redactor. The Arthurian story already possessed
the machinery by which Lancelot could become father of the elect child,
while remaining Guinevere's lover; Brisane had but to do for Elaine
what Merlin did for Uther, and the difficulty was overcome. Moreover,
_Helaine_ was, in the old story, the name of the Grail Winner's father,
nothing more easy than to bestow the same name on the new hero's
mother. All this was only a question of clever adjustment of already
existing factors.

Perceval, of course, was in possession, but the later development
of his story, which had converted him from a genuine, faulty, but
loving and lovable human being, true man and faithful husband, into
an aggressively proselytising and persecuting celibate, had made it
possible for him still to retain a place in the romance; he could
act as second to Galahad, and, like him, disappear, the quest once
achieved. But having thus disposed in Lancelot's interest of the two
who might have seriously challenged his fame as a knight, Perceval,
the real, Galahad, the vicarious (for I think we can only regard him
as his father's representative), achiever of the quest, it became
necessary to add a third, who should bring back to court the tidings
of their success. It is quite obvious, from the point of view of the
_Lancelot_ story, that Perceval and Galahad _could not_ be permitted to
return. The third was easily found in the person of Lancelot's nearest
relative, the knight who, his shield unstained by the bar-sinister
which marked that of Hector, had been gradually rising in popular
favour; Bohort owes his position in the _Queste_ to his position in the
_Lancelot_ proper.

The evolution of this character has not, I believe, attracted much
attention hitherto, but it is one of the most remarkable features of
the _Lancelot_ story. In the earliest versions, represented by the
_Lanzelet_, etc., he is not known at all.[156] When he first appears
he plays but a small part, gradually his rôle becomes more and more
prominent, till in the later portion of the prose _Lancelot_ he has
become a very efficient understudy to the hero, even surpassing in
valour Gawain himself. Thus, on the return of the knights from one
of their numerous quests in search of Lancelot, when they are called
upon to rehearse their adventures, in order that a record of them
may be made, it is decided that their rank, in order of merit, is
Bohort, Gawain, Hector, Gaheriet, Lionel, and Baudemagus. Gawain and
his brother, the representatives of the older stratum of Arthurian
tradition, are the only two who can compete with the all-conquering
race of Ban, and the bosom friend of that race, Baudemagus.

Finally he is represented as the father of a son who bids fair to
rival his ancestors in valour. When a critical study of the Lancelot
MSS. is seriously undertaken, I think we shall find that the position
occupied by Bohort in the story will afford a valuable indication of
the relative age of the redaction.

I am quite prepared to find that among the objections which will
doubtless be advanced against the theory here advocated one will be
that it is too complete in detail, too 'cut and dried,' if I may use
the term, to be free from suspicion. To this I would answer that I
believe in examining the later stages of Arthurian romance we must
follow a somewhat different process from that which we employ for the
earlier. The Arthurian poems, being in a large measure independent,
and never having formed part of a 'cyclic' whole, may well be studied
separately, in, and for, themselves, though of course we would not
leave out of sight variants of the same story. But the later prose
romances, those which have avowedly formed parts of a cycle, must be
studied, not separately, but in conjunction with the other romances
with which they were connected. They are in the position of the
parts of a dissected puzzle, the study of one part by itself will
never really help us to understand the whole, it is only by studying
collective sections, and trying continually new combinations, that we
can hope to find the original disposition of the parts.

It is no use to study the _Queste_ romance by itself. If we wish
to know how it stands with regard to the _Lancelot_, we must study
it _with_ the _Lancelot_, and if we do this certain points become
absolutely clear. The _Queste_ pre-supposes a very advanced stage of
the _Lancelot_ story; one at which the family of the hero, quite as
much as the hero himself, is the subject of glorification.[157]

The Galahad _Queste_ is absolutely unthinkable without a previous
knowledge of the _Lancelot_ romances; as a matter of fact, it stands
in closer relation to these than it does to any earlier Grail quest.
The _Lancelot_ romances, on the contrary, would be quite complete and
far more coherent without the _Queste_. I have commented already on
the striking discrepancies between the sections, but I have not so far
dwelt at any length on the extraordinary lack of Grail references in
the _Mort Artur_, the section immediately following the _Queste_. If
we set on one side the introductory passage, which I have no shadow of
doubt does not belong to the _Mort Artur_ at all, but is the concluding
passage of the _Queste_, there is no evidence of the influence of the
latter throughout the whole of this last section of the cycle. Galahad
is never mentioned; he was--and is not--as completely as if he had
never been. Lancelot never thinks of, never refers to, his valiant son;
his whole thought and care is for the queen, whom we were previously
told he had renounced. I do not think it possible for any one to read
the _Mort Artur_ and believe that the _Queste_ forms an integral part
of the _Lancelot_ story. On the other hand, cut out the _Queste_,
suppress the few passages in the immediately preceding section of the
_Lancelot_ story which relate to it, and you have a tale as complete
and coherent as is possible for any legend which has been the fruit
of long growth and evolution, and has not possessed from the outset a
clear and definite purpose and outline.

Admit, as I think we must needs admit, that the _Lancelot_ and the
_Grail_ stories form two independent streams of tradition; recognise,
as we must recognise, their diverse character,--one strongly secular,
the other strongly ecclesiastical,--and I think we must own that if in
their completed form they were to coalesce, that coalition could only
be carried out under the conditions suggested above, which conditions
we find fulfilled in the Galahad _Queste_. For me this romance is
the last word of the _Lancelot_ evolution, the final blending of two
separate and important streams of tradition, the _grant conte_ of
Lancelot and the _grant conte_ of Perceval and the Grail, the which is
_chiés et fin de tous les contes_.



CHAPTER IX

THE DUTCH LANCELOT


In the previous chapters we have examined, so far as the material
at our disposal permitted, the _Lancelot_ legend in its gradual
evolution from a collection of scattered tales, or _lais_, to the
vast body of cyclic romance which was its final form. In this task
we have restricted ourselves to those features which more intimately
concern the personal character and fortunes of our hero; a choice
which leaves untouched a large section of his adventures, such as his
friendship with Galehault, and his winning of the _Dolorous Garde_.
These are features which, affecting no romance or chronicle outside the
_Lancelot_ proper, cannot well be examined till more versions of this
latter are available. In this, the concluding section of these studies,
I propose, leaving the question of the nature and origin of the legend,
to discuss the relation subsisting between those different versions of
the text, on an examination of which I have based the three preceding
chapters dealing with the prose _Lancelot_.

The texts in question are (1) the so-called Dutch _Lancelot_; (2) the
printed edition of 1533 (Lenoire, Paris); (3) Dr. Sommer's summary
of the prose _Lancelot_, based upon the printed edition of 1513, and
compared by him with Malory's text; (4) Dr. Furnivall's edition of
the _Queste_; and (5) Malory's _Morte Arthur_.[158] This gives us
practically four different texts for each section (Dr. Sommer having
also used the _Queste_), two of which, the Dutch _Lancelot_ and the
1533 edition, appear to me to be of far greater importance than has
hitherto been suspected.

I propose to publish in an Appendix a detailed summary of the contents
of the distinctively _Lancelot_ portion of the =D. L.=, but the
compilation covers such an extent of ground, and contains texts of such
value to the student of Arthurian literature, that I think it will not
be superfluous to give here a brief outline of its general character.

A noticeable peculiarity of the version is, that, contrary to all other
known versions of the _Lancelot-Galahad-Grail_ story, it is in verse
and not in prose. The MS. containing it appears to be of the beginning
of the fourteenth century;[159] but Dr. Jonckbloet gives reason to
think that the version contained in it was decidedly older than this
date, and there are certainly references to the _Lancelot_ story in
much earlier Dutch MSS. Probably it is a compilation similar to that
of Sir Thomas Malory, intended to combine the various romances of the
Arthurian cycle with which the compiler was familiar, or of which MSS.
were at his disposal. In the first instance it was a translation, and I
think we must hold a very faithful translation, from the French. Even
as we have it we shall find that it agrees closely with parallel French
versions. In its original form it consisted of four books, the first of
which has unfortunately been lost.

Book II. begins with what M. Paulin Paris called the _Agravain_ section
of the prose _Lancelot_, _i.e._ the _Enfances_, _Galehault_, and
_Charrette_ portions are not included.[160] The first 36,000 lines
follow the course of the _Lancelot_; at line 36,947 it takes up the
_Perceval_ at the point of the arrival of the Grail messenger, and for
about two thousand lines goes on to give an account of the achieving
of the adventures mentioned by her. In some points the compiler agrees
closely with Chrétien and seems to have followed his version, in others
he departs entirely from any known version of the _Perceval_. Sometimes
his names agree rather with Wolfram than with Chrétien; _e.g._ the
lady is Orgeloise simply, not L'Orguelleuse de Logres; and Gawain's
challenger is Ginganbrisil, a form which Professor Yorke Powell pointed
out some years ago as the probable source of Wolfram's Kingrimursel.

L. 41,420, we have a visit of Gawain to the Grail castle, agreeing
closely with that found in the Montpelier _Perceval_, and also, Dr.
Jonckbloet informs us, with that contained in a German version of
the _Perceval_ preserved at Rome (cf. Jonckbloet, vol. i. p. xxiv.),
adventures of Gariette and Griflette, and the fight between Gawain
and Ginganbrisil, which ends in the victory of the former, and the
king of Scavalon becoming Arthur's 'man.' This again is not recounted
elsewhere.[161]

Ll. 42,540-47,262 contain the romance of _Morien_, son of Agloval, the
hero of which bears a curious resemblance to Wolfram's Feirefis. In
this romance occurs the episode of Lancelot's conflict with a monster,
which I have examined in chap. iii. This concludes Book II.

Book III. opens with the _Queste_, the text of which I shall examine
in detail further on; it extends to over 11,000 ll. The remainder of
the book is occupied by a group of important episodic romances, some of
which are found nowhere else. They are as follows:

 11,161. _La vengeance de Raguidel._[162]

 14,300. An adventure of Lancelot, Bohort, and Dodinel, when the latter
 rescues a maiden tied up in a tree.

 14,681. _Le Chevalier à la Manche_ (van den riddere metter mouwen).

 18,603. _Gauvain et Kei_ (Hoe Keye Waleweine verriet).

 22,271. _Lancelot et le cerf au pied blanc_ (van der jonc frouwen
 metten hondekine).

 23,122-26,980. _Torec._[163]

Book IV. _Mort Artur_, 13,054 ll. The united three books thus
comprising a total of over 87,000 lines.

It will be seen from the above brief summary that the =D. L.= presents
many features of great interest for the student of the Arthurian
story, but so far, with the exception of the studies published by
M. Gaston Paris, to which I have just referred, it does not appear
to have attracted much attention from scholars. It is especially to
be regretted that Dr. Sommer did not use it for the purpose of his
'Malory' collation; had he done so, he would certainly have come, on
many points, to a very different conclusion from that at which he
ultimately arrived.

In the following comparison I shall confine my remarks chiefly to
such decided variants as cannot possibly be ascribed to the mistakes
or emendations of copyists; nor shall I include those minor verbal
differences which, however important for a critical edition of the
text, do not in themselves definitely prove a divergence of sources.
The point I desire to prove is that the versions =D. L.= and =1533=
represent a text radically different from that consulted by Dr. Sommer;
and that, in conjunction with Malory, they may be held to represent a
family of MSS. hitherto unregarded, or unsuspected.

As readers of Malory are aware, he gives no account of the birth or
early adventures of Lancelot; the section dealing with that hero begins
with Book VI., and takes up his adventures at a point well advanced
in what, following M. Paulin Paris, I have called the _Agravain_
section (l. 13,351 in =D. L.=). That Malory had before him any version
of the earlier section of the _Lancelot_ I very much doubt. It must
be apparent to any careful reader that, in his view, the Lady of the
Lake is connected rather with Arthur than with Lancelot; whenever
she intervenes in the story it is to aid the former, rather than the
latter. I incline to the belief that Malory's MS. only began at an
advanced point of the story, and that he knew little, or nothing, of
what had preceded it.

At the commencement of the Terriquen (=D. L.= gives the name as
Tarquijn) adventure, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =M.= all represent Lancelot
and Lionel as sleeping under the shadow of a '_pomier_' instead of a
_perron_ as in =S.=[164]

When Hector comes to the fountain he finds =D. L.= LX. shields and
helmets, and XL. swords (the first letters have evidently been
transposed and should read XL.). =1533.= Forty-five helmets, forty-five
swords, and 'more than' forty-five shields. =S.= Forty swords,
forty-five shields, and five spears: helmets are not mentioned. Here
=S.= appears to have a confused version of the two preceding accounts.

In the account of the queens who carry off Lancelot =D. L.= and =1533=
agree with =S.= in naming the ladies (the queen in =D. L.= is of
Foreestan, _not_ Sorestan); otherwise the accounts seem to vary. =D.
L.= and =1533= do not say, as does =S.=, that the first-named is on
her way to Norgales through 'Sorelois,' but that her land 'borders
on' these kingdoms. It is not the _three_ but only the two last-named,
Morgain le Fay and Sibile (Cybele) l'enchanteresse, who are learned in
enchantments; and neither =D. L.= nor =1533= give any indication of
their being the 'queen's ladies' as =S.= represents; they are simply
travelling with her.[165]

The lands of the heiress of Rochedon were not seized by the _King_ of
Sorestan, as =S.= states, but by the _queen_ who had been left her
guardian (=D. L.= and =1533=). This is much more in accordance with the
rest of the story. Otherwise these three versions agree against =M.=

Later on both =D. L.= and =1533= agree in speaking of Galehodyn as the
_neveu_, not the _filz_ of Gallehault, as in =S.= They are of course
right.

In the account of the tournament there are a number of small variants.
Judging from =S.=, who gives a very condensed summary, =D. L.= and
=1533= are again more correct in details.

On p. 186 of =S.= the summary departs widely from =D. L.= and =1533=.
Thus, according to =S.=, Lancelot, seeking for Hector and Lionel, has
met with Bohort, Yvain, and four other knights at the 'Chastel du
Trespas.' Lancelot proposes that each of the _six_ knights (_sic_)
(there were of course seven) shall each ride forth separately and
return to the castle 'a la feste de toussainz.' In =D. L.= and =1533=
Lancelot has started _accompanied_ by Bohort, Baudemagus, and Gaheret.
_En route_ they meet Mordred, naked, and being thrashed with thorns by
'Mathoeus die felle' (Marchant li felon), rescue him, and ride to
Chastel du Trespas, where Yvain is imprisoned, whom they also free. It
is Yvain, not Lancelot, who suggests the separation and quest.

Again, in the fight between Lancelot and 'Terriquen,' both =D. L.= and
=1533= agree against =S.= and =M.= in failing to mention Gaheret's
(they have the correct spelling) horse, and saying that Lancelot rides
off on his own. Whereas, later on, =S.= and =1533= agree in giving
'three varlets and three sommiers' and =D. L.= and =M.= agree in a
'foster' with four horses.

In the question of the final disposal of the castle =D. L.= and =1533=
again fall into line against =S.= The latter says that the knights
exchange Terriquen's castle for horses, though not very good ones. I
suspect this of being a hasty summary which does not represent the
text; =D. L.= and =1533= are so much more detailed. =D. L.= says that
'Die grave van den _Pale_ (later on _Parke_, which is I think the
correct reading) is rejoiced at the event as his '_neve_' was one of
the prisoners. He gives all Arthur's knights very good horses. That
he receives the castle is not told, though he afterwards appears
as the owner. =1533= says that 'Keux[166] du Parc' has a 'brother'
prisoner: delighted at his safety he gives them all horses, very good
to Arthur's knights, not so good to the others. Out of gratitude they
offer him the castle. If =S.= correctly represents the text of 1513, it
is clear, I think, that =1533= gives the original reading, which has
been condensed, but rightly understood, by =D. L.=, and confused in =S.=

In the account of the adventures at the castle =D. L.=, agreeing in
the main with =S.= and =1533=, as against =M.=, yet in one point falls
into line with this latter against the other two. Both =S.= and =1533=
agree in saying that Lancelot ties his horse to a _tree_, =M.= says 'to
a ringe on the walle'; in =D. L.= he ties his horse, when he comes to
the '_meester torre, vor die porte al te hant_,' which seems to imply
=M.='s 'ringe.'[167]

I now come to a most extraordinary oversight on the part of Dr. Sommer.
On p. 191 and again on p. 274 of his _Sources of Malory_ he commits
himself to the statement that =M.= is the only known source for certain
adventures of Lancelot, his rescue of Kay, his riding off in Kay's
armour, etc., and proceeds from this supposed peculiarity to postulate
a lost '_Suite de Lancelot_,' of which this is a precious fragment.
Now, not only are these adventures recorded both in =D. L.= and =1533=,
but they are found in the summary given by M. Paulin Paris on p. 323 of
vol. v. of the _Romans de la Table Ronde_.[168]

The adventure with Kay does not, in the original, occur at this point,
but follows after Lancelot's long imprisonment by Morgain; his freeing
Lionel from the dungeon of the King of Estrangeloet; winning the hill
guarded by Bohort; and discovering the tomb of his grandfather;--a
sequence of incident in which =D. L.= and =1533= agree perfectly.

Of the following adventures contained in Book VI. =S.= consequently
gives no summary. Throughout =M.= very closely agrees with =D. L.=
and =1533=, but he omits to state, as do both these versions, that
Lancelot's arraying himself in Kay's armour was due to the dim light
of early morning. He believed himself to be donning his own, and was
unaware of the error till his host detected it, when he refused to
change, foreseeing the amusing complications which would result. This,
having no bearing on the story, which is concerned with the _fact_, not
with the motive, was probably omitted by =M.= Another slight variation
in =M.='s version is that he gives three knights and three pavilions,
whereas the other two agree in giving two knights and four pavilions.
Nor are the knights named as in =M.=, but this is most probably due to
the English writer, who hardly ever fails to name his characters.

The four knights of the Round Table are the same in all three cases,
and =M.= and =D. L.= agree in the order, while =1533= makes Yvain the
last to joust. The two first are probably correct, as Gawain, being
the most noted of the four, would probably be the last to try his
fate. Both =D. L.= and =1533= agree in a feature omitted by =M.=, that
Mordred was originally in the company of these four, but being severely
wounded on a previous occasion cannot joust (=D. L.=); has been left at
a castle that morning (=1533=). =M.= also omits to say that Segramore
reveals their names to Lancelot, who, overcome with grief at having
so ill-treated his friends, throws away his shield, and rides off
weeping. This causes the four knights to suspect his identity, and they
take the shield and carry it with them to court. I suspect that this
was in =M.='s original, as he makes Gawain say 'whan we come to the
courte than (s)hal we wete,' which is the reason they give in the other
versions for taking the shield; accordingly, they hang it on a pillar
in the middle of the hall until it is recognised.

Immediately after this adventure =D. L.= and =1533= record one of which
=M.= gives no hint, but which is important in view of a remark made by
Dr. Sommer on p. 204 of his study. Lancelot, having overthrown these
four knights, comes to two pavilions, in one of which is the lady who
cured him from his illness at the Poisoned Spring;[169] as they talk a
party of knights and ladies ride up, with them a fair child three years
old (=D. L.=); two years old (=1533=). This is Bohort's son, Hélie le
Blank, whom Lancelot is delighted to see. Now, Dr. Sommer tells us
that, saving in the record of this infant's birth, the allusion to
it in the _Queste_, and the mention of Hélie being at Arthur's court
when Lancelot, Hector, and Perceval return from l'Île de Joie, there
is no mention of him in the prose _Lancelot_. It seems clear that a
large section of the _Agravain_ must have been omitted in the versions
consulted by Dr. Sommer.

Of the three subsequent adventures in Book VI., the final one, that
of the knight who smites off his lady's head, and is compelled by
Lancelot to do penance for his crime by carrying the dead body from one
court to another, is also in our two versions, but occurs at an earlier
point in the story. In both he is to go first to Arthur's court, then
to that of Baudemagus, and lastly to the King of Norgales. If all spare
his life he may live. =M.= departs from this by only directing him in
the first instance to go to Arthur's court: it is Guinevere who sends
him on to the Pope. The variant is probably Malory's own.

The other two adventures are not in either =D. L.= or =1533=. The
Perilous Chapel, I suspect, was taken over from a Perceval section.
Meliot de Logres, and the fetching of a piece of cloth from the chapel
of a 'Perilous Cemetery' are both in _Perceval li Gallois_ though not
connected with each other. It is noticeable that =M.= never refers
to the 'Perilous Cemetery' of the _Lancelot_ proper, that of the
upright swords, but drops out the reference to Galahad's achieving
of it, which must certainly have been in his copy of the _Queste_. I
think there may have been two Perilous Cemeteries, one of the Borron
_Lancelot-Perceval_, the other of the Map _Lancelot-Galahad_ cycles,
and that this is the first and older.

The adventure of the Lady and the Hawk in chap. xvi. I have not been
able to trace.

The events of =M.=, Book VII., are not recorded in either =D. L.= or
=1533=, with this possible exception, that when the knights return to
court after the adventures recorded above, and are called upon for an
account of their doings, Gawain relates how he fought with Gariette,
_not knowing that he was his brother_; which looks as if the story (not
related in detail) might represent a version of the similar encounter
in Book VII. It seems clear that, full as is the account given in both
these versions, the compilers still knew a great deal more than they
included.[170]

Books VIII., IX., and X. of =M.= follow the prose _Tristan_, and not
till Book XI. do we return to the _Lancelot_. This book opens with the
adventures at Corbenic (=D. L.=, Cambenoyc, Cambenoyt, or Cabenoyt).
=D. L.= fails to mention that the lady of the bath is naked, and
consistently calls the serpent of the tomb a serpent, never a dragon,
in this differing from the other versions. =1533=, at this point,
after relating the achievement of their adventures, has a curious
remark: '_Ainsi prend fin le premier volume des vertus et glorieulx
fais et gestes du noble et puissant chevalier Lancelot du Lac et des
compaignons de la Table Ronde_,' and then continues, without any break
of chapter, to relate the succeeding adventure with the Grail and
King Pelles' daughter. So far from this passage occurring at the end
of vol. i., the _Agravain_ section does not begin till fol. xxxix. of
the second volume of this edition. It is possible that when a critical
edition of the _Lancelot_ is prepared the above remark may be a guide
to an earlier redaction, in which Lancelot was not the father of the
Grail Winner. =D. L.= has nothing corresponding to this.

In the account given by =D. L.= of Bohort's visit to Corbenic, the
fight with the knight who keeps the bridge for love of Elaine is
omitted, but it was evidently in the source, as later on the knight
arrives at court as vanquished, and his name is then given as _Brimol
van Pleiche_, thus agreeing with =M.=, _Bromel la Pleche_, against the
_Brunet du Plaissis_ or _Plessis_ of =1533= and =S.= =1533= records the
combat.

On page 195 of the _Studies_ we read that Dr. Sommer's source contained
no passage to the effect of =M.=, p. 576, 30-32: 'Mervelle not said sir
bors / for this half yere he (Lancelot) hath ben in pryson with Morgan
le fay, kyng Arthurs syster /.' But =1533= gives it: 'il a este en la
prison ou il y a une dame plus dung an entier,' which is nearer the
real duration of Lancelot's imprisonment. This seems to indicate that
=M.= had a fairly full MS. source, from which he selected at pleasure.

Dr. Sommer gives no summary of Bohort's Grail adventures, so I cannot
tell if there be any interesting variants between the French versions,
but both =1533= and =D. L.= contain two features, not reproduced in
=M.=, which seem to indicate a knowledge of an older Grail tradition.
In both the old man tells Bohort that he has seen '_la lance
Vengeresse_' the '_wrake spere_,' he who sits in the Siege Perilous
shall know the truth of adventure.'[171] (This, of course, might be
Perceval equally as well as Galahad.) Galahad and Lancelot are not
mentioned throughout.[172] The Maimed King and the Fisher King are one
and the same person. All these points confirm my suspicion that the
Corbenic adventure was originally taken over from an earlier, probably
a Gawain, _Queste_.

In the events relating Elayne's visit to the court and Lancelot's
madness, =1533= and =D. L.= in the main agree with =S.=, but with small
variants. In both Elayne leaves the court of her own free will, but
Arthur does not escort her; she speaks to Bohort before leaving. The
knight encountered by Bohort is alone in =D. L.=, thus agreeing with
=M.=; while in =1533= he does not meet him till after he has rejoined
Lionel and Hector. The knights who go in search of Lancelot are in =D.
L.= thirty-two in number, and as later on we are told that twenty-five
have returned, this does not seem to be a mistake for twenty-three,
as we might otherwise think. =1533= does not give the original number
as thirty-two, but agrees with =D. L.= as to those who return, which
confirms this supposition.

In all that relates to Perceval and his first appearance at court, =D.
L.= and =1533= agree on the whole with =S.= rather than with =M.=, but
neither of them give any names of Perceval's brothers (save Agloval,
who fetches him from his home), nor say how many there were. Lamorak
is never mentioned (I believe this character belongs to quite a late
redaction). In this and in the reference to Gawain's having slain
Perceval's father, I think we have the influence of the _Tristan_.

In the account of Perceval's being driven from court by the mockery of
Kay and Mordred, =D. L.= has a remark which again shows the influence
of an earlier tradition: Perceval is described as '_Eene harde jonge
creature, ende die wel simpel sceen te dien_.' Nowhere else is there
any sign of the simplicity which is a primitive trait of Perceval's
character. Later on, after the 'Patrides' adventure (which appears to
be differently related from =S.= as it is from =M.=, Patrides and the
lady having fled together, been overtaken, and imprisoned), both =1533=
and =D. L.= agree in the words spoken by Patrides (=D. L.=) or the king
(=1533=), _i.e._ that Kay and Mordred have driven from court one who
should be a better knight _than all save Gawain_.

    '_Ghi hebt entrouwen, dat secgic u,
    Uter herbergen verdreven nu
    Den besten ridder dier in was
    Sonder Walewein sijt seker das._'--ll. 36247-50.

(=1533= says 'When he is grown to manhood' he shall be as good, etc.)
This certainly points to an earlier stage of tradition, when Perceval
and Gawain are the leading knights and Lancelot subordinate to both.

In view of what we now know, I think it is not an unreasonable
hypothesis that these two versions, which agree so closely, represent
an earlier pseudo-Borron _Lancelot-Perceval_ redaction, which has
been worked over in the interest of the later pseudo-Map _Galahad_
version.[173]

Book XII. =M.= gives the account of Lancelot's frenzy and subsequent
cure. Here =D. L.= agrees with =M.= in saying that Lancelot strikes
the shield as if X. knights did it, whereas both =S.= and =1533= give
XII. Later on =D. L.= is alone against the other three in saying that
Lancelot has only his ankles fettered, whereas the other three versions
give ankles and wrists. Nevertheless here I think =D. L.= is right,
as when Lancelot rushes after the boar both =S.= and =1533= agree in
saying that he breaks the rings on his ankles, and make no mention
of those on the wrist. Again =D. L.= makes no mention of hunters,
the horse Lancelot takes he finds tied at the castle gate. As later
on, when he comes up with the quarry no hunters are mentioned in any
version, I think it probable that they were not in the original, but
introduced later by some copyist to account for the boar.

At this point =D. L.= departs abruptly from the other versions, taking
up the Perceval story. It is impossible to say whether this be due to
a _lacuna_ in the source, which the compiler filled up as he pleased,
or whether this really represents an important (and apparently lost)
_Lancelot_ redaction. In the remainder of the incidents represented by
this book =1533= agrees on the whole with =S.=, with this important
difference, that it makes it quite clear throughout that there is a
period of some years involved. The reader quite understands all the
details of Galahad's arrival at the abbey, his age, etc. Very probably
the compiler of =1513= (Dr. Sommer's source) condensed here, as
elsewhere, thus causing the confusion noted on p. 205 of the _Studies_.



CHAPTER X

THE QUESTE VERSIONS


We now reach a very important point in our investigation. The
_Lancelot_ section of Malory is not only so much condensed, but also so
fragmentary in character, and, apparently, so capricious in choice of
incident that a critical comparison between the version there offered
and other forms of the _Lancelot_ story can never be productive of a
completely satisfactory result. It is one of those cases in which we
must be content with probability, and renounce the hope of arriving at
certainty. We have evidence enough to enable us to form an hypothesis
as to the _original_ character of the MS. used by Malory; of its actual
condition, whether complete or incomplete, and, if the former, of the
reasons which determined the compiler in his choice of incident, we
cannot yet speak positively. I doubt if we shall ever be able to do so.

But with the _Queste_ section it is different. As I remarked before,
this part of the _Lancelot_ cycle is far more homogeneous in structure
than the sections preceding or following it: it is a romance within a
romance, complete and rounded off in itself. Malory appears to have
felt this; he condenses still, it is true, but it is condensation, not
omission; he follows the sequence of incident accurately, begins with
the beginning, ends with the end, consequently we are in a far better
position for comparing his version with that of the other texts, and
can hope to arrive at a really satisfactory result.

The first noticeable variant is in the passage 'for of a more worthyer
mans hande may he not receive the order of knyghthode,' words spoken by
the abbess to Lancelot. These are not in =Q.= but are in =D. L.=:

    '_Ende ic soude gerne sien dathi
    Van uwer hant ridder werde, wildi;
    Bedie van beteren man, sonder waen,
    En mocht i ridderscap niet ontfaen._'--Book III. 61-64.

Also in =1533=: 'car de plus preudhomme que de vous ne pourrait il
recevoir l'ordre de chevalerie sicomme il nous est advis,' vol. iii.
fo. 67. Here then =M.=, =D. L.= and =1533= agree together against =Q.=
=W.= has 'for we think that a better than he could not receive that
dignity,' thus referring the phrase to Galahad--a probable misreading
of the original French.

In the account of the arming of Galahad, omitted in =M.=, =Q.= and =D.
L.= agree in saying that _Lancelot_ buckles on one spur, _Bohort_ the
other, whereas =1533= gives _Lionel_ and _Bohort_. This latter is, I
think, the right version, otherwise Lionel, though present, would have
no share in the ceremony. =W.= also omits Lionel, and makes Bohort only
bestow a kiss on the youth, Lancelot buckling on the spur, in this case
one only.

In the adventure of the sword in the stone we again find =M.=, =D. L.=
and =1533= in accord against =Q.= All three relate that Gawain attempts
to draw the sword and fails. This must be correct, as =Q.=, though not
saying that he makes the attempt, represents Arthur as telling him to
_laissies ester_ the moment he touches the hilt, words which both =D.
L.= and =1533= place in Arthur's mouth after the attempt:

                  '_Nu laet staen
    Gi hebet wel min bevelen gedaen._'--ll. 231-2.

This latter phrase is evidently represented by =M.=: 'I thanke
yow (s)aid the kynge to (s)yre Gawayne /' =W.= records Gawain's
(Gwalchmei's) attempt, but not the king's speech.

According to =1533= no other knight makes the attempt. =D. L.= records
Perceval's failure, and says that after that none would essay the
venture.

    '_Soe datmen vord daer niemanne vant,
    Die daer an wilde doen die hant._'--ll. 255-56.

I suspect that =M.=, 'Thenne were there _moo_ that dur(s)te be (s)oo
hardy to (s)ette theire handes thereto /,' should be corrected by the
substitution or insertion of a negative (_no_ before _moo_ or _none_),
it would read more coherently. =W.= relates no attempt after Perceval,
but does not say definitely that no one essays the feat.

The result here is clearly, =M.=, =D. L.=, =1533= against =Q.=, with
special agreement of =M.= and =D. L.=, =1533= and =W.=[174]

In the case of Galahad's message to his relations at Corbenic, every
one of the versions gives a different rendering.

=M.= My graunt sir Kynge Pelles / and my lord Petchere / (a manifest
error).

=Q.= Mon oncle le roi Pelles / mon aioul le riche pescheoure.

=D. L.= Min here den Coninc Pelles--enten Coninc Vischere min ouder
vader.

=1533.= Mon oncle le roy pescheur--et mon aieul le roi Pelles.

The greeting is omitted in =W.=

It is difficult to know what to make of such confusion, but of the four
variants I prefer the last as possessing a certain _raison d'être_. The
Fisher King was certainly the uncle of the original Grail Winner, and
King Pelles is as certainly the grandfather of Galahad. It looks to me
as if the compiler of this version had made an effort to combine the
Perceval and Galahad stories, though his version as it stands is in
contradiction to his text.[175]

=D. L.= text should be noted as compared with the statement of the
earlier section, that the Maimed King and Fisher King are one, and
that the personage thus named is _not_ King Pelles but his father. The
manifest uncertainty of the Galahad _Queste_ as to the identity of this
personage, and his relationship to the Grail Winner, as compared with
the much clearer statements of the early Perceval story appear to me a
proof of the lateness of the former. As to which of the four versions
given represents the real view of the author of the _Queste_, I should
not like to hazard an opinion--probably copyists altered according to
their own particular view of the matter!

After the appearance of the Grail there is an interesting passage,
omitted in =M.=, where Gawain remarks that each has been served with
whatever food or drink he desired, which had never happened before save
in the court of the _roi mehaignet_ (=Q.=); _roi Perles_ (=1533=, which
generally adopts this spelling), _coninc Vischer_ (=D. L.=). Here =Q.=
stops, but =D. L.= and =1533= continue Gawain's speech, _nom-pourtant
ils ne peuvent onques veoir le sainct vaisseau ainsi comme nous
l'avons veu, ainsi leur a este la semblance couverte_ (vol. iii. fo.
69). _Maer si waren bedrogen in dien, Dat sijt niet oppenbare mochten
sien_ (687-8). Nevertheless, since he has not seen it as clearly as he
might, he will go in quest till it be wholly revealed to him. I think
the above passage is the source of =M.= '/ one thynge begyled vs we
myght not (s)ee the holy Grayle / it was (s)oo precyou(s)ly couered
/.' The compiler omits, as I said above, Gawain's reference to the
previous appearance, but adapts the latter part of his speech to the
circumstances he is narrating. =W.= gives the passage practically in
its entirety, but so freely rendered that we cannot use it for textual
comparison. The king is called King Peleur.

Here again I think we may postulate an agreement between =M.=, =D. L.=,
=1533= and =W.= in a feature omitted by =Q.=[176]

=D. L.= is alone against the other three in not giving the owner of the
castle 'Vagan' the same name as his castle, but simply says: 'Nu was
een goet man te Vagan' (l. 1146), which I suspect is the right version.
=W.=, on the contrary, does not name the castle, but says it belonged
to _Bagan_, 'a good and religious man.'

In the account of the adventure with the shield, both =D. L.= and
=1533= give Galahad's remarks to his companions more fully than do =Q.=
or =M.=, though the general bearing of the passage is well represented
in this latter. In both the first Galahad tells his companions that
if they fail in the adventure then he will attempt it; =1533=, 'et se
vous ne le pouez emporter ie l'emporteray, aussi n'ay ie point d'escu';
they then offer to leave him the adventure, but he tells them they must
essay it first. =D. L.=:

    '_Elst nu dat gi falgiert daer an,
    Ic sal daventure proven dan--
    In' brachte genen scilt met mi._'--ll. 1244-54.

With this =W.= agrees.

Here, again, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =W.= give a much clearer text than
=Q.=; and =M.=, though condensing, agrees closely in substance with the
two first.[177]

In the adventure with Melians de Lile, =D. L.= and =1533= again all
agree against =Q.= in stating that he is son to the King of Denmark
(=W.= King of Mars), thus motiving Galahad's lecture on the duties of
his high station. It was certainly in =Q.='s original, as he says:
'_Puis ke vous estes--de si haute lignie comme de roy_,' though Melians
has not told him his parentage.

=M.=, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =W.= are here superior to =Q.=

In avenging Melians on the knight who has overthrown him, =M.= and =D.
L.= agree in saying that Galahad smites off the whole left _arm_, as
against the '_poing_ senestre' of =Q.= and =1533=. =W.= says he cuts
off his _nose_!

In the symbolic interpretation of Melians' adventure, =1533= gives the
fullest and clearest version. The right-hand road represents the Way
of Our Lord, wherein His knights 'cheminent de iour et de nuyt la nuyt
selon l'arme et le iour selon le corps,' =1533= (vol. iii. fo. 74),
which is intelligible. =Q.= exactly reverses this: 'entrent de jours
selon l'arme, et de nuis selon le corps.' =M.= gives, 'For the way on
the ry[gh]t hand betokeneth the hyghe way of our lord Jhe(s)u Cry(s)te
/ and the way of a true good lyver /'; =W.=, 'On that road go the souls
of the innocent,' thus evading the difficulty. =D. L.= is here very
confused, and does not seem to have understood the passage.

In the adventure of the Castle of Maidens, =M.=, =D. L.=, and =1533=
again agree in saying that Galahad meets seven maidens, against one
in =Q.= =M.='s '/ Soo moche peple in the stretes that he myghte not
nombre them /' is evidently a rendering of =1533=: 'tant de gens que il
estoit impossible de les scavoir nombrer.' =D. L.= has exactly the same
phrase, but gives '_joncfrouwen_' instead of '_gens_,' thus for once
agreeing with =Q.=, which gives _puceles_, against the other two. =W.=
here gives 'maidens,' but in the first instance has 'a youth.'

A little later, =1533= and =D. L.= throw light upon an apparent
contradiction between =M.= and =Q.=, noted by Dr. Sommer.[178] The old
man of whom Galahad inquires the meaning of the adventure is, as Dr.
Sommer remarks, the same who has given him the keys; but =M.= says he
asks a '_preest_.' Both =1533= and =D. L.= agree in saying that Galahad
asks the old man who brought him the keys, when he comes to him the
second time, if he be a priest, and is answered in the affirmative.
Again, the three agree in giving seven years as the time the customs
have been established, against the two in =Q.= =W.= here agrees in both
points with =1533= and =D. L.=

It is plain that we must reckon this entire adventure among the
agreements of =M.=, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =W.=, though in one particular
=D. L.= and =W.= agree with =Q.=

In the account of the fight of Gawayne, Gareth, and Uwayne, with the
seven brethren, both =D. L.= and =1533= give Gariët (Gaheriet) as the
equivalent of Gareth.[179]

When Lancelot is sleeping before the Grail chapel, =1533= clearly
states that the servant of the knight who has been healed takes
Lancelot's sword and helmet, as well as his horse, whereas =Q.= only
mentions the horse; but says later that Lancelot finds himself 'tot
desgarnis de ses armes et de son cheval.' =D. L.= also only mentions
the horse at the moment, but a little later on states that Lancelot
is 'sonder scilt ende helm ende part,' thus practically agreeing with
=1533=. =M.= differs from both in saying that it is _sword_, helm, and
horse of which the squire deprives him. =W.= here agrees with =M.=

=M.= and =D. L.= agree in omitting the parallel between Lancelot and
the bad servant, in the Parable of the Talents, which is given by
=1533= and =W.= But it is a noticeable feature of both =D. L.= and
=1533= that though they give as a rule a fuller account than =M.=,
both of them shorten very considerably the improving and 'sermonising'
sections which are such a feature of =Q.= On the other hand, both give
the adventurous sections in a more accurate and detailed manner.

Perceval's interview with the recluse, in Book XIV., is clearer in
=D. L.= than in either of the French versions, and has some special
features of interest.[180] Thus in =Q.= Perceval asks, who was the
knight who overthrew him. He does not know 'ne se ch'est chil qui vint
en armes vermeilles a court' (_when_ he does not say); the recluse
answers, 'Yes,' and she will tell him the 'senefianche.' In =D. L.= the
passage runs thus: Perceval asks,

    '"_Oft gi wet wie die riddere es
    Dien ic soeke berecht mi des,"
    Si gaf hem antwerde daer of;
    "Hets die gene die quam int hof
    In sinxen dage, ende die dan
    Die rode wapine hadde an."
    "Nu seldi mi wel berichten des,
    Wat betokenessen dat was?_"'--ll. 3229-36.

This seems to me a preferable rendering.

=W.= here hovers between the two versions. The aunt tells Perceval who
Galahad is in answer to his question, as in =D. L.=, but volunteers the
explanation as in =1533=.

Later on Perceval tells her:

    '_Hoe hi gevonnen hadde sijn lant,
    Ende sijn broder daer in es bleven
    Met sinen liden, mit sinen neven.
    "Dat wet ic wel," seit si saen,
    "Die heilegeest deet mi verstaen,
    Dies ic harde blide was."_'--ll. 3442-47.

There is no parallel to this in the other versions, but it agrees
with what we find in _Morien_; and I think it probable that the Dutch
compiler, who seems to have been very familiar with the _Perceval_
story, may have introduced it.[181]

The castle at which Perceval is to seek a kinsman is not named in =D.
L.=, but =M.= Goothe, =W.= Goth, and =1533= Got, agree against =Q.=
there.

In Perceval's adventure with the Fiend Horse, the text of =1533= is
again preferable, being clear and detailed throughout, _e.g._ whereas
when the lady asks Perceval what he does under the tree, =Q.= makes
him answer, 'Qu'il ne _sent_ ni bien ne mal mais s'il eust cheval il
se leva d'illuec.' =1533= gives 'qu'il ne _faisoit_ ne bien ne mal'
mais si j'avoye ung cheval ie m'en iroye d'icy.' =W.= here agrees with
=1533=.

After the fight with the dragon, =M.= tells us that Perceval 'ca(s)te
donne his (s)held / _whiche was broken_ /.' =Q.=, agreeing in the first
part, omits this feature; but both =D. L.= and =1533= say the shield
was not broken, but _burnt_: 'Der verbernt was wech ende wede' (3886);
'Qui estoit tout brulé' (III. fo. 83). As we have previously been told
that the dragon was breathing forth flame, this is manifestly correct.
=W.=, describing the fight, says, 'his shield and breastplate were
burnt all in front of him,' and that he 'threw the shield from him
burning.' =M.=, who is condensing here, omits the fiery breath, hence,
I suspect, the _broken_ instead of _burnt_ shield.

I think we may take this again as agreement of =M.=, =D. L.=, =W.=, and
=1533= against =Q.=

The 'drois enchanteres vns multeplieres de paroles' of the French
versions, with which =M.= closely agrees, is in =D. L.=:

    '_Hets een toverare sijt seker des
    Die can dinen van vele spraken
    Ende van enen worde hondert maken._'--ll. 4294-6.

An amplification probably due to the exigencies of rhyme;[182] though
as =W.= gives, 'He was a necromancer, who of one word would make twelve
without ever saying a word of truth,' the original source may have had
something similar.

=M.=, =D. L.=, and =W.= again agree against =Q.= and =1533= in giving
a shorter version of Perceval's prayer, and omitting all New Testament
references.

The adventure of the dead hermit, in Book XV., is, again, better told
in =D. L.= and =1533= than in =M.= or =Q.= Thus =Q.= omits to state
the nature of the supposed transgression, which is clearly set forth in
the other three:

    '_Maer hine es niet, donket mi,
    Na sire ordinen gebode,
    Noch na onsen herre Gode;
    Want hi niet heden den dach
    In sulken abite sterven ne mach,
    Hine hebbe bi enegen onmaten
    Sine ordine nu gelaten._'--ll. 4780-87.

This is evidently the source of =M.='s 'this man that is dede oughte
not to be in suche clothynge as ye see hym in / for in that he brake
the othe of his ordre /.' =W.= gives the same reason at greater length.

Later on =M.= seems to have had before him a reading nearer to =Q.=:
in the morning, 'il trouverent sans faille le preudhomme _de vie_,'
which =M.= understood as _alive_, since he says, 'he laye all that nygt
tyl hit was daye in that fyre and was not dede /,' though immediately
afterwards he says that the Hermit came and found him dead. =D. L.=
and =1533= say, 'Ende alse dat vier utginc si vonden Den goeden man
doet tien stonden,' ll. 4915-16; 'ilz trouverent sans nulle faulte le
preudhomme mort.' The miracle consisting in the fact that his garments
(_e.g._ the linen shirt) were untouched by fire, so that he evidently
had died from the previous ill-usage, not from the burning--a result
which he had predicted. =W.=, on the contrary, says that 'when the
fire was extinguished the man was as lively as he was before. And then
he prayed Jesus Christ to take his soul to Him, and He received him,
without injury to the shirt or himself.' The whole adventure should be
carefully compared, and the superiority of these three versions will
be clearly seen. The two first are, I think, the correct version of
the incident, but =W.=, though rendering freely, gives a fuller account
than is often the case.

The list of Celidoine's descendants agrees in =D. L.= and =1533=, while
=M.=, though varying from the other three, leans rather to these two
than to =Q.=:

   =D. L.=      =1533.=         =M.=                =Q.=

  Marpus.      Narpus.        Nappus.              Warpus.

  Nasciens.    Nasciens.      Nacyen.              Chrestiens.

  Cham.        Ch'm le gros.  Hellyas le gro(s)e.  Alain li gros.

  Helyas.      Helyas.        Ly(s)ays.            Elias.

  Jonas.       Jonas.         Jonas.               Jonaaus.

  Lancelot.    Lancelot.      Lancelot.            Lancelot.

  Bans.        Ban.           Ban.                 Ban.

I think here the second name is certainly Nasciens, and that the
mysterious _Cham_ of =D. L.= and =1533= (a personage whom we do not
know) ought probably to be _Alain_. Such a mistake might easily be
made by a copyist, if the MS. before him were not clear and he was
unfamiliar with Grail traditions. I think it very likely that =M.='s
source was much the same as that of =D. L.= and =1533=, and that
he dropped out _Cham_, but the comparison of the four versions is
interesting. The list is omitted in =W.=

The black and white knights are treated by =D. L.= as purely visionary
and symbolic, and no names are given.

The incident of the black knight, who issues from the lake and kills
Lancelot's horse, differs in =1533= from the other four versions.
Instead of striking the horse at once he rides past Lancelot without
touching him, then returns, striking the horse _en route_ and
disappearing in the lake. I suspect that this is the right version; the
knight is evidently a water-demon, and having his dwelling in the lake
should return there.

At the commencement of Book XVI., when Gawain and Hector meet, they
ask if any tidings have been heard of the principal questers. Here
there are some interesting variants: =Q.= mentions Lancelot, Galahad,
and Bohort, but says these _four_ are the best of the questers; =D.
L.= only mentions these, but says rightly these _three_; =1533= first
mentions Lancelot alone, then Galahad, Perceval, and Bohort, and
reckoning all together, says these _four_, and with this =M.= and =W.=
agree.

There are but few interesting variants in the account of Bohort's
adventures; the symbolic interpretations are, as usual, much less
insisted upon, indeed =1533= gives no such explanation either of the
disinherited lady, or of the 'lily and dry wood' vision, though Bohort
is assured of Lionel's safety. The fight between the two brothers is
also more briefly told: we do not hear that they lie long unconscious
after the flame descends, but Bohort is told at once to join Perceval.
Here =W.= agrees with =D. L.= and =1533=.

=D. L.= differs from all the other versions in naming the damsel who
warns Bohort of her mistress' suicidal intention. She is called Pallada.

In Book XVII., in all concerning the mysterious ship, the text of =D.
L.= and =1533= is far superior to that of =Q.= The inscription in =D.
L.= runs thus:

    '_Hort man, die wils gaen hier in,
    Besie di wel, ende oec merc
    Dattu sijs geloves vol ende sterc.
    Want ic els niet dan gelove ben
    Hier bi hoede elkerlijc hem:
    Falgiert hem eneger maniren
    Van gelove, ic sal hem falgiren._'--ll. 7910-16.

=1533= says the inscription is in 'langaige dit _Caldeu_,' and says
'si tost q tu guerpiras ta creance ie te guerpiray en telle maniere
que tu ne auras de moi ne conseil ne ayde,' and proceeds to explain
(which no other text I have consulted does) that if he who enters fail
in faith he will fall into the water. This should be compared with
the passage in Hucher,[183] where the inscription on the ship agrees
closely and is also said to be in Caldiu. The warning as to the nature
of the penalty is omitted here, but the penalty is incurred exactly as
=1533= foretells.

=M.= evidently had the warning of =D. L.= and =1533= before him when
he wrote 'for and thou faile I shal not helpe the /.' =W.= gives the
warning in more general terms, due perhaps to the translator.

Perceval's speech on entering the ship is again best given by =1533=.
Here, he says, he will enter 'pour ce que se ie suis desloyal que ie
y perisse comme desloyal, et se ie suis plain de foy et tel comme bon
chevalier doit estre que ie soye sauvé,' _i.e._ he submits to the test
in all humility. =Q.= says: 'Car iou sui plain de foi et teus comme
chivalers doit estre,' thus omitting the qualifying phrases, and giving
the speech quite a different meaning. =W.= closely agrees with =Q.=
=D. L.= also, though less abrupt, practically agrees with =Q.=; while
=M.= must have had the version of =1533= before him: 'for yf I be a nys
creature or an untrue knyghte there shalle I perysshe'--a reading he
could not possibly have derived from either of the other two.

In the account of the scabbard of the sword we have a most interesting
variety of readings, but, comparing one with the other, it appears
certain that here again =1533= is in the right.

One side of the scabbard is said by =D. L.=, =1533= and =M.= to be red
as blood, with an inscription in letters black as a coal; while =Q.=
says the scabbard is 'black as pitch'--an evident confusion with the
inscription. =W.= says the sheath is 'rose-red,' with letters of gold
and silver.

The name is given differently in each instance: =Q.=, memoire de
_sens_; =D. L.=, Gedinkenesse van _sinne_; =M.=, meuer of _blood_;
1533, memoire de _sang_. =D. L.= and =1533= go on to say that 'none
shall look upon that part of the scabbard which is made of the Tree of
Life but they shall be reminded of the blood of Abel.' =M.= omits the
latter part of this sentence, thus making great confusion.

Now, comparing these versions together, the right reading becomes
perfectly clear. The scabbard is red, for it was made (at least one
half of it was) of the wood of the Tree of Life, which, as we are
distinctly told, turned red at the death of Abel; and the inscription
'_memoire de sang_' was intended to keep this event in mind. The
confusion, in the case of =Q.= and =D. L.=, clearly arose from the
MS. at the root of the first having had the reading san_s_ for san_c_
or san_g_ (a reading often met with); a careless copyist, heedless of
the sense of his transcription, wrote _se_ns and this was correctly
translated by the compiler of =D. L.= as _sinne_; a reading which,
however unintelligible in itself, would probably not strike the
compiler (who was certainly an intelligent writer with a very good
knowledge of French) as absolute nonsense, inasmuch as it was connected
with the 'calling to mind' of the death of Abel. =Q.=, who omits this
qualifying passage, does make nonsense of it. In =M.='s case the
mistake was in the first word, and probably arose from a confusion
between _m_ and _uv_, which may very well be due to Caxton; otherwise
=M.= appears to have had the same version as =1533=, which, alone, has
preserved it free from error. =W.= omits the inscription altogether.

The 'erle Hernox' in =M.=, Ernous in =Q.=, is in =D. L.= and =1533=
Arnou_t_ and Arnou_l_. Ernoulf in =W.=

Both =D. L.= and =1533= state that the maiden who shall cure the
lady by her blood must be not only a virgin and a king's daughter
but _Perceval's sister_. This is neither in =Q.= nor in =M.=, and
may perhaps indicate that, as I have suggested, these two versions
belonged to an original _Perceval-Lancelot_ redaction, from which they
introduced occasional additions to Perceval's share of the _Queste_,
as in the previous allusion to his having recovered his kingdom in =D.
L.=[184]

In the account of Lancelot's visit to Corbenic, after being struck down
at the sight of the Grail, =Q.= says he is discovered seated (seant)
before the door, while the other three all represent him as lying
(lyinge--licgende--gisant), which is certainly more in harmony with the
general situation. =D. L.= says that when Lancelot recovers and knows
he has lain unconscious fourteen days he bethinks him:

    '_Hoe hi hadde gedient den viant
    .xiiij. jaer, ende pensede te hant,
    Dat hem onse here daerti dede
    Die macht verlisen in sine lede
    .xiiij. dage._'--ll. 9919-23.

Whereas =Q.= only says 'qu'il avoit servi l'anemi.' A meaningless
phrase, as it stands. =M.= agrees with =D. L.= with the exception that
he says _twenty-four_ instead of _fourteen_, in which he is certainly
correct, as Lancelot's _liaison_ with Guinevere had begun long before
the birth of Galahad. The number may have been altered by the compiler
of =D. L.= for the exigencies of the rhyme, which would not admit
the original form. =1533= omits the passage altogether, condensing
considerably at this point.[185] =W.= does not specify whether he were
lying or seated, but agrees with =D. L.= in giving fourteen years,
which rather looks as if that number may have been in the source of
this latter.

In the account of the questers at Castle Corbenic =D. L.= and =1533=
alike clear up a passage which, as it stands, is obscure in =M.= and
utterly unintelligible in =Q.= Nine stranger knights arrive at the
castle,[186] three being of Gaul, three of Ireland, and three of
Denmark. When they separate the next day, =Q.= has this unintelligible
passage--Galahad has asked the strangers' names--'et tant qu'il
trouuerent estrois de gariles, que claudins li fieus le roi claudas,
en ert li uns et li autre de quel terre qu'il fuissent, erent asses
gentile homme et de haut lignage.'[187] =M.= renders, without any
mention of names being asked, 'But the thre knyghtes of Gaule, one of
them hyghte Claudyne, kynge Claudas sone / and the other two were grete
gentylmen' (which should surely have given Dr. Sommer a clue to the
right rendering of the passage).

=D. L.= runs thus:

    '_Ende alsi buten den castele quamen
    Vragede elc oms sanders namen,
    Soedat si worden geware das,
    Dat van den drien van Gaule was
    Claudijn Claudas sone die een,
    Ende si vonden van den anderen tween
    Dat si waren van groter machte
    Ridders, ende van groten geslachte_'--ll. 10601-8.

=1533= has, 'Si trouverent que des trois de Gaulle Claudius le filz
au roy Claudas en estoit ung et les autres estoiet assez vaillans.'
It seems clear that =M.='s text is that of =D. L.= carelessly
abridged.[188]

Both =D. L.= and =1533= conclude the _Queste_ section with the
passage relating the death of the twenty-two (twenty-four) questers,
eighteen of whom fell by the hand of Gawain; the writing out of the
knights' adventures, and the preservation of the record in the abbey
of Salisbury where Map found them, this latter item being omitted by
=1533=. This passage is, as a rule, now found at the beginning of the
_Mort Artur_ section, but, I think, it is clear that its proper place
is at the end of the _Queste_; as I have pointed out already, the light
in which it represents Gawain is entirely in keeping with that romance,
while it does not agree with either the _Mort Artur_ or the _Lancelot_,
both of which regard Arthur's gallant nephew with genuine respect.
Further, the drawing up of a record of adventures is better placed at
the end of the section dealing with the adventures to be recorded than
at the beginning of another. =M.='s words, 'alle this was made in grete
bookes / and put up in almeryes at Salysbury /' coupled with his total
omission of any corresponding passage at the commencement of the next
book, seem to prove that in his source, too, it stood at the end of the
_Queste_.[189]

What now are the results we may deduce from this examination of four
versions of the Galahad _Queste_? First, I think it is clear that the
verse translation in =D. L.= and the prose =1533= both offer a text
very decidedly superior to that edited by Dr. Furnivall, and, if Dr.
Sommer's extracts are to be relied on, that represented by the majority
of the printed editions of the _Lancelot_. Second, it is equally
clear that the text used by Malory stood in close relation to these
two versions. Many variants attributed by Dr. Sommer to the English
compiler, are, it is now certain, due to his source, in the treatment
of which he shows little sign of intelligence or invention, but rather
a tendency to compression at all hazards, sometimes omitting the very
part of a phrase which was required to make the whole intelligible. The
general tendency of our examination, therefore, goes to establish the
practical agreement of =D. L.=, =1533= and =M.=, as against =Q.= and
=S.= The version given by =W.= is so free a rendering, and omits so
many details, that it is scarcely possible to place it. It seems clear
that the _original_ source must have belonged to the same MS. family as
the former three, but whether the agreement was with =1533=, rather
than with =D. L.= and =M.=, or _vice versa_, it is impossible to say.

But how do these three stand as regards each other? On the whole
=1533= appears to represent the better text, and it also appears to
have preserved signs of an earlier redaction, yet I do not think it
is the direct source of the other two. We often find =D. L.= and =M.=
agreeing in details of numbers and names, as against the other version;
certainly in the case of such a name as Brimol van Pleîche, Bromel la
Pleche, the agreement must be due to a French source common to both. I
should be inclined to postulate some such scheme as this.

               =A.= (Original French Version).
                |
    +-----------+---------------+
    |                           |
  =1533.=                      =B.= French.
                                |
                               / \
                              /   \
                          =D. L.=    =M.=

As will be seen from the summary of =D. L.= appended to these studies,
both this version and =M.= show, in the _Lancelot_ section, a certain
_plus_ of incident as against =1533=, though these incidents vary in
each case. The relation cannot, therefore, be exactly determined, but I
think there can be no reasonable doubt that for the _Lancelot-Queste_
section of his compilation Malory used an _Agravain-Queste_ MS.

That he had _two_ MSS., one for the _Lancelot_, another for the
_Queste_, as Dr. Sommer[190] suggests, is highly unlikely. It would be
too curious a chance that he should in each case hit on a version so
closely corresponding to that of the two with which we have compared
his reading.

This appears to me practically to dispose of the argument, that Malory
had before him a number of episodic romances, an argument often brought
forward;[191] the 'Turquine' episode in Book VI., the whole of Book
VII., and the adventure with the damsel of Escalot being instances in
point. Turquine certainly came out of the _Lancelot_, as did the lady
of Escalot; Book VII. may have been an episodic romance, as also the
handling of Urre of Hungary; though this latter, as we shall see, may
equally well be an amplification of an adventure found in the prose
_Lancelot_.[192]

Again, it very greatly limits the probability of Malory's having
elsewhere worked with a free hand, inventing and rearranging, when we
find, as we have done, that numerous small details, hitherto ascribed
to him, are faithful reproductions of his source. We are justified in
cherishing very serious doubts as to the originality of any marked
deviation from the traditional version of an adventure which we may
find in his compilation.

These arguments, of course, apply most strongly to his version of
the _Charrette_ adventure, the problem of source of which, so far as
Malory is concerned, is absolutely unaffected by the evidence we have
collected. This alone is certain, there is _no proof whatever_ that
he knew anything of the first part of the _Lancelot_ romance, his
treatment of the Lady of the Lake seems to show that he was absolutely
ignorant of it. He was _not_ in the habit of departing unnecessarily
from his source, his variations as a rule are slight, and their motive
can generally be detected; when, therefore, we find him giving an
entirely different account of the abduction of Guinevere from that
given elsewhere, the probabilities are all in favour of his reproducing
a separate source, and all against his original invention. So far as
the matter stands in the light of the latest evidence, the question
remains unsolved, with a decided balance in favour of the theory
advanced by M. Gaston Paris, and against that advocated by Professor
Foerster.[193]

Leaving the question of Malory, what may we hold to be the result of
this examination on the problem of the _Queste_ itself? Is the form
in which we possess it practically the original form, or are we to
postulate a series of successive redactions? I think that every one who
has carefully studied the variants given above must have been struck
by the fact that in no case is the question one involving a variety of
incident or even an alteration in sequence. It is the same story in
every case, told in the same order, in the same words, only certain
copies give a fuller and more coherent version than others. In fact,
as I said above, the variations are the variations of the copyist,
not of the compiler. The one point in which we may postulate either
omission or addition, _i.e._ the greater or less fulness, the presence
or absence, of the 'improving' sections, is precisely a point in which
we might expect a copyist of a more or less didactic turn of mind to
assert himself; it was so easy to expand or to contract such passages.
And it is a curious feature that precisely in those versions in which
the _story_, as a whole, is the best told (=D. L.=, =1533=, and in a
minor degree =M.=), we find the edifying passages in their shortest
forms; while =Q.=, the text of which as compared with the others is
decidedly poor, gives them at the greatest length.

Of any previous redaction of Galahad's adventures there is no trace;
there are no lengthy interpolations as in the _Conte del Graal_ MSS.;
there is no conflict, such as we find in other romances, between
an earlier and later form; in sundry passages we have allusions to
unrelated adventures: we are told that the heroes ride so many days,
weeks, or years, and meet with many and strange adventures, but in no
copy do we find any hint of what these adventures may have been; yet
had there existed an earlier and fuller form, some fragments of it must
surely have been preserved.

And this argument becomes more convincing the more closely we look into
it. Above we have compared _four_ versions of the _Queste_ (_five_ if
we include =W.=), but one of these, Dr. Furnivall's edition, does not
represent one MS. only, but is founded on a critical collation of two,
and contains a specimen of the opening columns of twelve MSS. of the
_Bibliothèque Nationale_; while Dr. Sommer states that he has examined
four other versions and found that, saving details of style, all agree
in incident and sequence. We may therefore take it as certain that one
of the four variants represents at least _five_ MSS., while scholars of
standing assure us of the practical identity of sixteen more!

Now, side by side with these _Queste_ versions, we have compared four
versions of the prose _Lancelot_, and of these four no two agree
perfectly throughout, and all differ from the summary given by M.
Paulin Paris.

=D. L.= and =1533=, which on the whole correspond well with each
other, yet have their distinctive differences, _i.e._ =D. L.= contains
adventures not related by =1533=; =M.=, while on one side condensing
arbitrarily, on the other gives two adventures known to neither of the
first; and =S.= omits an important section altogether. The summary in
_Romans de la Table Ronde_, while agreeing on the whole with the two
first, deviates from both in the later sections.[194]

The practical identity of _all_ the versions of a romance transmitted
in so large a number of MSS. as the _Queste_ is, I believe, unique in
the Arthurian cycle. Such a phenomenon, for it is nothing less, can,
I think, only be explained in one way: there was but one version of
the story, and that version took shape, _not_ at a period when _oral_
transmission was the rule, but at a later date, when the story could at
once find expression in literary form. I do not believe that any story,
the earlier stages of which were developed _orally_, is ever, when
committed to writing, found so entirely free from variants.[195]

Can we decide what special form of the Perceval _Queste_ the Galahad
variant was intended to supersede? I think not: it is noticeable that
the writer never gives any adventure which finds an exact parallel
in the older romances, yet he not only knew the Perceval story, but
knew it in various forms. The allusions in Book XIV., though slight,
are remarkably instructive: he knew that Perceval was the son of a
widow, and that his mother died of grief at his departure (Chrétien,
Wolfram, Didot _Perceval_); that in his wanderings in search of the
Grail he came to the dwelling of a female recluse, who proved to be a
near relative (only related by Wolfram); that he has a sister (Didot
_Perceval_, and _Perceval li Gallois_). Thus in these few allusions he
is in touch with the whole cycle of Perceval romance! When, therefore,
we find that he never elsewhere assigns to Perceval any of the
adventures traditionally connected with him, but gives him a new series
which are duplicated elsewhere, one can only conclude that it is done
of set purpose.

Of the parallels given above, the existence of the sister appears
to me to be the most important, judging from the prominence of the
rôle here assigned to her. She only appears in the two forms of the
Perceval _Queste_ which show traces of having formed part of a cycle;
and inasmuch as _Perceval li Gallois_ represents the mother as living
to see her son return, and regain his kingdom, the correspondence
is closer with the Didot _Perceval_, but the question can hardly be
settled.

As a _Grail_ romance the _Queste_ is extremely poor. The utter
confusion of the writer as to the identity of the Fisher King and
Maimed King; the inter-relation of Grail Winner, owner of Grail
Castle, Fisher King and Maimed King; the neglect of the most obvious
conditions of the quest, such as ignorance on the part of the
predestined Grail Winner; his giving proof of identity by fulfilment
of a test; the inaccessibility of the Grail castle to all but the
elect knight--all show a most extraordinary carelessness on his part,
were he intending to write a Grail romance pure and simple. Ignorance
we cannot postulate. He knows too much about Perceval not to know
more about the Grail! It is evident throughout that the main anxiety
of the author is to keep himself in touch with the _Lancelot_ rather
than with the _Grail_ tradition. He is extremely careful to introduce
references to that portion of the _Lancelot_ story with which he is
familiar; to explain that the adventures foreshadowed in _Grand S.
Graal_ and _Lancelot_ have been really fulfilled, and so long as he can
demonstrate his hero to be a worthy upholder of the glories of the race
of King Ban, he cares very little if he fails to fulfil the necessary
conditions of the original Grail Winner. This latter may know from the
first what the Grail is, where it is, his own predestined relation to
it, his final winning it may be reduced to an absurdity by the presence
of eleven or twelve others all equally worthy of beholding the sacred
talisman, but that matters nothing to the author; he has contrived to
bring the Grail into more or less harmony with the _Lancelot_ legend;
he has crowned the most popular of Arthur's knights with reflected
glory as father of the Grail Winner, he has put the last touch to the
evolution of the _Lancelot_ legend, and in so doing he has achieved the
task which he set himself to perform. The _Queste_ is in all essential
features not a _Grail_ but a _Lancelot_ romance, and as such primarily
it should be judged.



CHAPTER XI

THE MORT ARTUR


This, the final section of the _Lancelot_ cycle, offers less
opportunity for criticism. The versions of =D. L.= and =1533=, though
still closely in accord with each other, differ much less from the
summary given by Dr. Sommer, and show less affinity with Malory.[196]

So far as Malory is concerned I differ from Dr. Sommer, who says that
'he cannot have derived his account from the prose _Lancelot_.'[197]
On the contrary I think there is little doubt that Malory had the
latter portion of the _Lancelot_ before him, but dislocated it by the
introduction of the _Charrette_ and _Urre of Hungary_[198] episodes,
which he most probably knew in an independent form; though of course,
as I have suggested above, it is quite possible that some _Lancelot_
MSS. may have included the latter. But considering the clear proof that
the English compiler was following an _Agravain_ MS. for the earlier
part of his _Lancelot_ adventures, and that he includes the Astolat and
Patryse stories, which are a part of the ordinary _Mort Artur_[199]
section, I see no reason to doubt that his _Lancelot_ MS. represented
_all_ the latter part of the cycle (as we know he had, and followed, an
alternative version of the =M. A.= proper). I have carefully compared
both =D. L.= and =1533= with the abstract given in the _Studies_,
and give the following as the most important of the variants, but I
should like to make it clearly understood, both as regards this and the
previous sections, that the instances I quote by no means represent
_all_ the points of contact and departure to be noted between the
different versions. I have many others in my notes, and a critical
edition will certainly very much strengthen the case I have here stated
in outline.

As we have before noted, =D. L.= and =1533= agree against =S.= in
incorporating with the _Queste_ the passage generally given as the
opening of =M. A.= Otherwise all three versions are in practical
agreement as regards the events leading up to the tournament at
Winchester. =D. L.= does not mention Hector when Lancelot inquires on
which side his kinsmen are fighting, but only Bohort and Lionel. =1533=
agrees here with =S.=

According to =D. L.= and =1533= Gawain and Gaheriet take no part in the
fighting at Arthur's desire: he fears they may fight with Lancelot, and
ill-will arise from it. =S.= does not mention this, so I cannot say if
it be in the =1513= edition or not.

=S.= says, 'The people think the two knights' (Lancelot and his
comrade) 'cannot be the sons of the lord of the castle of Escalot.'
This does not agree with the other versions: the people think they
_are_ the lord's sons at first; then _Gawain_ says, one of them cannot
be. =D. L.=:

    '_Ende man waende daer wel dat Lanceloet
    Ware een vanden broderen van Scaerloet._'--ll. 851-2.

and Gawain proceeds to say, 'This knight with the red sleeve is not he
whom I thought, no one ever saw such valour by one of the "Kinder van
Scaerloet."' Arthur asks what knight he may be. =D. L.= makes Gawain
say simply he does not know, 'but he is certainly a good knight'; while
=1533= goes on to add 'if Lancelot had not been left at Kamalot he
would have said that this was he.' This does not at all agree with =S.=

Both =1533= and =D. L.= agree against =S.= in saying Lancelot's wounds
will take six (not seven) weeks to heal.

When Gawain and Gaheriet follow Lancelot, =S.= says they meet a
_wounded_ knight; in =1533= the knight is dead. =D. L.= omits the
incident.

When Gawain returns to Arthur, =S.= represents the king as saying 'it
was not the first time he took trouble without results, nor will it be
the last.' =1533= and =D. L.= here add '_through that knight_,' which
is evidently correct.

=S.= simply says the second tourney is fixed at Tanebor, 'du lundi
dapres en ung moys'; whereas the other versions carefully specify the
wherabouts of this place, 'dat een casteel es, Staende in den inganc
van Nortgales.' =D. L.= spells it 'Caneborch.'

Again, according to =S.=, Lancelot, unable to go to the tourney,
sends greeting to the queen and Gawain, 'from the knight who wore the
red sleeve'; whereas =D. L.= and =1533= say 'the knight who won the
tournament at Winchester' and make no mention of the sleeve, which,
considering the relations between Lancelot and Guinevere, seems to me
the better version. Neither do these mention that Guinevere tries to
persuade Bohort to return to Camelot.

When Gawain comes to Escalot =S.= represents him as admiring the
maiden's beauty and envying the knight 'with the red sleeve.' =1533=
says, more correctly, 'the knight who wins her love'; he has not yet
learned to whom the sleeve belonged.

In the account of what happens after Gawain's return to court, and
Guinevere's learning the truth, all the versions agree on the whole,
and it is noticeable that =M.=, though making Bohort a more energetic
defender of his cousin's good faith, yet correctly reproduces all the
main features of incident and speech. I think any one comparing his
version closely with two or three others can hardly fail to come to the
conclusion that it is the prose _Lancelot_ and no other account he is
reproducing.

According to =S.= Lancelot's kinsmen only remain for a week at court;
according to =1533= and =D. L.= it is 'that week and the next.'

When they leave the court on the second occasion after the tournament
of Tanebor, neither =D. L.= nor =1533= say (as =S.= does) that the
queen tries to persuade Bohort to remain, though they agree in making
her regret his departure.

After Lancelot's return to court when Bohort lectures Guinevere on the
mischief done by women, with reference to David, Solomon, etc., =D. L.=
omits the reference to Tristan, while =1533= amplifies it by saying 'it
is not five years since Tristan died for love of Iseult.'

=D. L.= omits all reference to Lancelot's being wounded in the wood,
condensing considerably at this point, and gives no account of the
arrival of the dead body of the maiden of Escalot.

In the account of how Lancelot learns of the queen's danger from Madoc
de la porte, all three versions differ. According to =S.= he meets a
knight from Kamalot who tells him of the queen's plight, and at once
resolves to rescue her. _The next day_ he meets Hector and reveals his
intentions; and a few days after both meet Bohort, who asks if they
know the news. =1533= says that as the first knight rides off, Hector
appears from a cross-road; he is on his way to defend Guinevere.

In =D. L.= it is not said how Lancelot first learns the news, but he
meets Hector and Bohort together, and on their asking him if he has
heard, replies in the affirmative.

I suspect =M.= had a version akin to this last before him as he makes
_Bohort_ Lancelot's informant.

In the account of the final detection of Lancelot and Guinevere, =S.=,
as I have before pointed out, goes wrong, by substituting _Guerreshes_
for _Gariët_. All the texts I have consulted agree in stating that it
is this latter who sides with Gawain, and refuses to be a party to the
betrayal.[200]

=D. L.= omits the fact that Arthur hears of Lancelot's victory at the
tournament of Cahere; and also the remark of Bohort that only Morgain
or Agravain can have betrayed him.

In the details of the detection all three versions agree closely.

In the account of Guinevere's trial =S.= again diverges from the
others. We read[201] 'Arthur decides to punish Guinevere with death.
He will have her tried at once. =P. L.= introduces here, and a little
later, a certain "roy Yon" who counsels moderation. The trial takes
place; Arthur, with Gaheriet, Mordred, and Agravain, doom the queen
to the stake.' I do not know if this accurately represents the text
=1513=, it certainly differs widely from the reading of =D. L.= and
=1533=.

=D. L.= does not mention Yon; =1533= simply introduces him as telling
Arthur that the trial cannot take place that evening, while both agree
in saying that _Gawain_ (whom =S.= does not mention at all) warns the
king not to proceed to extremities, threatening to give up all his
lands if the queen be burnt. Mordred and Agravain doom the queen to
death, Arthur _alone_ specifies the nature of that death.[202]

In the account of the fatal fight at the stake, =D. L.= represents
Lancelot as slaying both Gawain's brothers, while =1533= agrees with
=S.= in saying that Bohort kills Guerresches and Lancelot Gaheriet.
=M.=, it will be remembered, agrees in this with =D. L.= It may be
noted that all three, =1533=, =D. L.=, and =M.=, while making no remark
about Guerresches, especially lament Gaheriet: the two first say that
Lancelot knows Gawain will never forgive him for this, and =M.= speaks
of him as 'the noble knyghte,' making the identity with Gareth quite
clear.

The castle at which the queen and Lancelot stay _en route_ for Joyous
Garde, called _Scalee_ by =S.=, _Scalle_ in =1533=, and _Calet_ in =D.
L.= does not, I think, belong to Keux the seneschal, as =S.= supposes;
=D. L.= does not mention him, and =1533= speaks of '_ung Keux_,' a
friend of Lancelot's, which cannot be _Kay_. Both here, and in the
'_Keux_ du Parc' of the Turquine adventure, I suspect that we have not
a proper name at all, but a misreading of 'Queus'=_count_. In the
latter instance =D. L.= renders _Keux_ by _Grave_.

On p. 255, =S.= must surely have misread his source, as he says that
Lancelot sends messengers to _King Ban of Benoyc_, asking his aid. King
Ban was of course dead long before; =D. L.= and =1533= say to _the
barons_ of Benoyc, which must be the right reading.

Again, the summary of the battle, =S.=, p. 256, differs very materially
from =D. L.= and =1533=. =S.= says Gawain fights like a madman and
kills thirty of Lancelot's men with his own hand, wounding others,
Lionel among them. The next day there is another battle, in which
occurs the incident of Arthur being unhorsed by Bohort, and remounted
by Lancelot. Now in the other two versions Bohort and Gawain wound each
other so desperately at the first onslaught that they are carried off
the field half dead, and it is _Hector_ who overthrows Arthur.

Later on, after the return of Guinevere, when =S.= represents _Hector_
as challenging Gawain, the other two versions give _Bohort_.

After the kinsmen return to Benoyc we find =D. L.= in apparent
contradiction with the other versions. =S.= says that he makes Bohort
king of Benoic and Lionel of Gannes, while he himself keeps the crown
of Gaule, _because Arthur gave it to him_. =1533= seems to agree with
this latter phrase, as it says, 'et pour ce que le roy Artus me donna
le royaulme de Gaule ie le tiendray.[203] =D. L.= on the contrary says:

    '_Ende vanden conincrike, dat secgic u,
    Van Gaule sone doe ic niet nu,
    Ende ne houder gene tale af,
    Om dat mi die coninc Artur gaf;
    Want al haddi mi gegeven vor nu
    Al die werelt, dat secgic u,
    Ic gavese hem al weder te hant,
    Bedie ic ne soude en geen lant
    Nu ter tijt van hem willen houden._'--ll. 7407-15.

Now in the earlier portion of =D. L.=, after the war with Claudas,
we are told that Lancelot has made Bohort king of Gannes, Hector of
Benoyc, and Lionel of Gaul, an arrangement which exactly agrees with
that which =M.= takes from the English =M. A.= In this earlier passage
Lancelot gives as reason for not taking the crown that he prefers to
remain a simple knight, and =1533= represents Bohort and Hector as
following his example and declining the offered kingdoms.

I think the lesson of this discrepancy is that the _Lancelot_ and
the =M. A.= were fundamentally independent of each other, and each
contained an account of the crowning of the race of Ban. When brought
into close contact this caused a contradiction of statement which =D.
L.= and =1533= evaded each in their own way. =S.= gives no clue to
what happened on the earlier occasion.

The number of knights Arthur takes with him on his last expedition
agrees in =D. L.= and =M.=, sixty thousand, against forty thousand in
the two French versions.[204]

In both =1533= and =D. L.=, Guinevere does not, as in =S.=, ask for
a _week's_ respite, but for a _day_, and Mordred himself suggests
she shall have the week. _Labor_, whom =S.= calls simply 'a faithful
knight,' is in both these versions a near kinsman--_neve_, _cousin_. =D.
L.= gives as a reason for Guinevere's rejection of Mordred's offer that
she suspects his true relation to Arthur. This is not in =1533=.

In the account of the fight between Lancelot and Gawain, all three
versions apparently differ at the outset. Gawain will send the
challenge by a squire. =S.=, squire refuses, fearing Lancelot's wrath;
=1533=, refuses, fearing to bring about Gawain's death; =D. L.=, goes
at once.

The issue of the fight too is different in =D. L.= and =1533=. In
=S.=, Gawain receives a mortal wound in the head and retreats. In
=1533=, Lancelot appeals to the king: it is vesper-tide, and a fight
for treason must be concluded by nightfall. Arthur, seeing Gawain is
getting the worst of the battle, stops it at once. =D. L.= apparently
condenses a similar version, but makes Arthur appeal to Lancelot, who
says that he will be dishonoured if he leave his foe in possession
of the field, but Arthur entreats him to do so for his sake, and
Lancelot retires. Both agree in saying that Gawain is over twenty years
Lancelot's senior, and is now eighty-two years old![205]

=D. L.= represents the war with Rome as lasting twenty years, which
would make both Arthur and Gawain well over a hundred at the time of
their death!

After the news of Mordred's treachery =D. L.= makes no mention of
Gawain being carried in a litter on the return journey, or of his
desire for Lancelot's forgiveness; nor does he warn Arthur against
fighting with Mordred. This is, I suspect, due to the compiler's desire
to condense, as =1533= agrees in the main with =S.= The warning against
Mordred appears, however, to be fuller in the former, _e.g._ _Studies_,
p. 265. Gawain is represented as saying briefly, 'Avoid, if possible,
fighting with Mordred, for it will cause your death,' which is in
=1533=, 'Car ie vous dy vrayement que se vous mourez par une homme [=q]
vive vous mourrez par lui et madame la royne,' p. 154, which certainly
seems to point to an earlier redaction of the =M. A.=, where Guinevere
was a partner in Mordred's treason.[206]

In the description of Arthur's death there are some interesting
variants. Both =1533= and =D. L.= account for Lucan's death by the
weight of Arthur's armour; it is that, and not the vehemence of the
king's embrace, which really kills the sorely wounded knight.

They again differ in the details of the final scene. =S.= says 'a boat
full of ladies arrives; they land, go ashore, put Arthur, his horse,
and armour into the boat, and row off.' =D. L.= says they call Arthur,
who rises, takes his horse and armour, and goes into the ship. =1533=
says the mistress of the party is Morgain; she calls Arthur, who
rises at sight of her, she takes him by the hand (which would seem to
imply her landing), and bids him bring horse and arms and enter the
boat, which he does. Dr. Sommer evidently regards the entire account
as absurd, but I not only accept it, but regard the versions of =D.
L.= and =1533=, which would merit his strictures more fully than
that in which he finds such difficulty, as representing the earlier
and more primitive form of the story. There is no doubt that Arthur
was conceived of as living and ruling in Avalon. This account of his
practically voluntary departure for the mysterious island is much more
in accord with that idea than the version which represents him in
the extremity of mortal weakness, and subsequently dead and buried.
Arthur's tomb is _not_ compatible with Arthur in Avalon, and I strongly
suspect that the earlier redaction of the =M. A.= made no mention of
it; it is certainly omitted in the corresponding section of the Didot
_Perceval_, which only says he departed to have his wounds healed in
Avalon, and has not since been seen; but Bretons claim to have heard
his horn, and seen his armour, and believe he will return.

There is a curious discrepancy in the accounts of Lancelot's death,
which seems to point to two distinct versions of that event. =S.= says
he died August 5th, but does not say how long he was ill. =D. L.= says
he fell ill on May 15th, and died after four days. =1533= says he
fell ill May 15th, was ill four days, and died August 5th! Evidently
a combination by some unintelligent compiler of the two previous
accounts, but it is unusual to find such an obvious _bévue_ in so
otherwise admirable a version as that of =1533=.

All three agree that Lancelot is buried in Galehault's tomb, and that
Bohort becomes a hermit in his stead.

From the above comparison it seems clear that though offering less
striking and interesting variants, the Dutch version and that of =1533=
yet maintain, on the whole, their previous agreement as against =S.=;
while =M.=, which here possesses an alternative source the English
=M. A.=, yet occasionally betrays the same curious agreement with =D.
L.= which we have noted before. The result appears to confirm the
conclusion previously arrived at, that =D. L.= and =1533= represent a
common French original, and that =M.='s source, whether complete or
incomplete, was a MS. belonging to the same family.



CHAPTER XII

CONCLUSION


We have now reached the final stage of our _Lancelot_ studies, and
it only remains for us to gather up the threads of the previous
investigation, and to endeavour to formulate the results at which
we have arrived. We have seen that the _Lancelot_ legend was one of
remarkably speedy growth. We find no mention of the hero's name before
the latter half of the twelfth century, yet within ten years of that
first mention he is the most famous of Arthur's knights, and the lover
of the queen.[207]

We have examined the legend (_a_) in the form of a loosely constructed
biographical romance, composed of episodes originally foreign to each
other; (_b_) in detached episodic poems; (_c_) in its final form as
the most important member of a great prose cycle; and we have found
that in all this mass of literature the only really distinctive and
individual trait on which we could lay our finger was the story of the
hero being stolen as a child and brought up by the mistress of a water
kingdom.[208]

Into the question of the character of the Lady of the Lake we have
not entered deeply; we have seen that she touches on the one side the
mysterious queen of the Other World, on the other the scarcely less
enigmatic Morgain le Fay, King Arthur's sister. The subject was too
wide in extent to be adequately treated in this series; it demands
separate study, but the result, so far as the _Lancelot_ legend is
concerned, was to lead us to believe that the root of that legend was a
_lai_, presumably Breton, dealing with the theft of a king's son by a
water fairy; a theme which afterwards underwent considerable expansion,
in the course of which the characters of the hero and of his patroness
alike became greatly modified from the original conception.

The final and best known form of the story was mainly influenced by
the introduction of a _motif_ foreign to the earlier and tentative
development, _i.e._ that of Lancelot's love for the wife of his lord.
This _motif_, however, we saw reason to believe, did not really
represent the earlier tradition of Guinevere's infidelity, but was
a practically new development introduced under the dual influences
of a special social condition and the high popularity of the earlier
_Tristan_ story. As to the reasons which determined the choice of
Lancelot as the queen's lover, we found ourselves unable to express any
decided opinion.[209]

But from its very earliest stages the _Lancelot_ story came into
contact with another and highly popular tale, the legend of _Perceval_.
The earlier and later biographical forms (_Lanzelet_ and the prose
_Lancelot_) and the episodic romances (_Le cerf au pied blanc_ and
_Morien_) show traces of contact, direct or indirect, with this story;
while the precise statements of certain MSS.[210] make it quite clear
that even at an advanced stage of its evolution the _Lancelot_ legend
formed part of a cycle of which the most important member was the story
of _Perceval and the Grail_.

This continued contact with the _Perceval_ story, with the resulting
developments, appears to be the most important factor in the evolution
of the _Lancelot_ legend, and one which has hitherto been overlooked.

So far as the evidence at our disposal permits us to trace it, the
course of development seems to have been the following. Gradually
the legend of the _Grail_,[211] originally foreign to the _Perceval_
story, completely dominated that story and changed the character of
the hero, who became transformed into an ascetic celibate; while, on
the other hand, the growing popularity of the _Lancelot_ story had
reacted prejudicially on the position alike of Perceval and the still
earlier hero Gawain as knights of King Arthur's court. Eventually the
two competing centres of romantic interest were _Lancelot_ and the
_Grail_, and it became necessary to combine them in such a manner that
the latter, while still retaining its sacrosanct character, should yet
contribute to heighten the fame of the popular 'secular' hero.

Such a combination was possible, under certain conditions, and an
ingenious writer, perceiving this possibility, turned it to account by
inventing the Galahad _Queste_, which, poor and inadequate as a _Grail_
romance, yet as a contribution to the _Lancelot_ cycle had a very
certain and decided value. It put the final touch to the evolution of
the hero by enabling him to take part, under circumstances which should
vicariously increase his fame, in the great adventure of the Arthurian
cycle, the Grail Quest; it also restored superficially the unity of the
cycle, which had been injured by the cleavage between the _Grail_ and
the other sections, caused by the growing popularity of Lancelot as
compared with Perceval.

While Gawain and Perceval were the leading heroes of the Arthurian
cycle, a Perceval _Queste_ was natural; but as soon as these two were
supplanted in the popular favour by Lancelot, the Perceval _Queste_,
as an integral part of the cycle, became more and more inharmonious.
A change in the interest of the _later_ Lancelot development
was inevitable, and that the change took place precisely at the
psychological moment is, I think, proved by the practically universal
welcome accorded to the Galahad _Queste_. With unanimous consent the
Perceval _Queste_ appears to have been discarded _as a part of the
cycle_, although in its _independent_ form it still retained its
popularity.

Naturally all the branches of the cycle into which the new _Queste_
had been adopted were more or less affected by it; in some cases the
references to the coming Grail Winner were more or less vague, and
would apply as well to the later as to the earlier hero; in other
instances they were amplified but not altered, thus introducing
confusion into the text (this is, I suspect, the case with the
_Merlin Suite_). The romances that represented the _Early History_,
as introduction to the _Queste_, were naturally the most affected,
and at the present moment it is extremely difficult to decide whether
the _Grand S. Graal_ be a _direct_ amplification of the _Joseph of
Arimathea_, constructed with a view to the Galahad _Queste_, or
whether, in its existing form, it depends upon an intermediate version
the _données_ of which would agree with the cyclic _Perceval_.

In any case the 'net' result was, I believe, the substitution of the
name of the supposed author of the _Queste_, Walter Map, for that of
the traditional author of the earlier _Perceval-Grail_ story, Robert de
Borron; and to ascribe to Map that cyclic redaction of the Arthurian
romances which had previously been ascribed to de Borron.

I think that much of the difficulty hitherto experienced in determining
the order and date of the various Grail romances has arisen from our
very natural tendency to regard these romances as a group apart, and
to compare them exclusively with each other; whereas they should be
treated as members of the cycle, and compared with the other branches
of the cycle. More especially is this the case with the Galahad
_Queste_; treated as a _Grail_ romance proper, it is inexplicable, and
appears to represent no possible step that can be postulated in the
_natural_ evolution of the Grail legend. We could imagine the honour
transferred from father to son (as a matter of fact it is _Lohengrin_
and not Galahad who should be the successor to Perceval); but this
sudden break in the tradition by which the honour passes to the race
of King Ban, no relationship between Perceval and Lancelot being
previously hinted at, is, considered in itself, most perplexing. On the
other hand, treat the _Queste_ as an integral part of the _Lancelot_
cycle, and it not only explains itself, but gives us valuable
assistance in 'placing' the earlier versions.

At the same time it is obvious that the theory here advanced only
applies to the _later_ stages of the Grail tradition; it does not touch
the problem of the origin of the Grail itself, or its first connection
with Perceval.

In the course of our investigation we found it necessary to devote
especial attention to the work of Chrétien de Troyes, endeavouring to
ascertain the exact position which, in the evolution of the Arthurian
romantic cycle, should be ascribed to this famous poet. It became clear
that a very considerable portion of the matter with which he dealt
belonged by its nature to the domain of what we call folk-lore; and by
reason of that nature could not have been _invented_ by the poet, but
must have ante-dated, in some instances by many centuries, any possible
_literary_ rendering. Judged by the rules laid down by scientific
authorities on comparative religion, and story-transmission, Chrétien
could not have been an _inventor_, but only a brilliantly successful
re-teller of stories long known and popular. Instead of standing at the
_source_ of Arthurian romantic tradition, he was swept into the current
at a comparatively late period of its evolution. To solve the complex
problems of Arthurian romance we must go behind Chrétien: it is the
period preceding, not following, his work in which the solution of our
puzzles must be sought.

To this Chrétien himself bears witness. The position claimed for him
by certain modern scholars is not that which he claimed for himself;
he never professed to be telling a story no one had ever heard before,
though he may have flattered himself, not without reason, that he
was telling it better than it had ever previously been told. He was
dealing with heroes and adventures already well known to his public.
The manner in which he introduces, or refers to, incidental characters
makes it abundantly clear that he expected his readers to understand
his allusions. Especially is this noticeable in the case of Perceval,
who has been claimed, with more zeal than discretion, as one of his
most famous creations. He alludes to the hero in a manner that makes it
quite evident that this story was well known, and the name familiar,
to the public, some decades before Chrétien himself undertook to tell
it.

As practical results arising from these studies I would claim:

 _a_ That we, in future, place the evolution of the _Perceval_ story at
 a much earlier date than we have hitherto been willing to assign to it.

 _b_ That we admit the possibility of very important variations in the
 tale, some of them being anterior to Chrétien's version.

 _c_ That we recognise that this story of Perceval was of capital
 importance in the general evolution of the Arthurian cycle.

 _d_ That in the mutual relations between the _Perceval-Grail_ and
 _Lancelot_ stories we have the key to the final shaping of the entire
 cycle.

These principles admitted, and I think the evidence adduced goes far
to prove their soundness, it is obvious that in order to establish and
appraise the above relations at their full value, we must have complete
and critical editions of _all_ the principal texts. As matters stand
at present, the only texts which can be said to have been in any sense
critically treated are the Didot _Perceval_, and the _Parzival_ of
Wolfram von Eschenbach for the older story, and the _Charrette_ for
the younger. We have been waiting for years for a critical edition of
the _Conte del Graal_, and when we get it will the editor have taken
into consideration the various additions to Chrétien's text, and the
version of the Dutch compiler, or will it be Chrétien's portion of
the poem alone? In that case it will not help us very far. We need
sorely a critical edition of the curious _Perceval li Gallois_, with
its blending of wild, folk-lore features with late proselytising and
allegorising tendency, its baffling parallels to the German _Parzival_.

And if we are at a loss for material to adequately criticise the
earlier story, what of the later? Considering the highly mythic,
prehistoric character of so much of the Arthurian tradition, the
disappearance of so many of the intermediate stages, and the consequent
difficulty in fixing the _earliest_ form of any characteristic feature,
it would seem that our best plan would be to start from the _final_
form assumed by the cycle and work gradually backward, since for a
certain period, at least, we might hope to find solid ground beneath
our feet. But the most important text for this final form of the
Arthurian cycle, the prose _Lancelot_, remains unedited. And indeed it
might well seem to be a work beyond the powers of any one scholar; the
number alike of MSS. and of printed editions is so large; they are so
scattered, no important library but can show one or more _Lancelot_
texts, and we cannot afford to leave even _one_ of all this mass
unexamined. The great discrepancy between the printed texts which the
foregoing comparison has shown us; the pregnant hints as to earlier
redactions, which the passages I have quoted from M. Paulin Paris
and Professor Heinzel assure us may be found in the MSS., are all
indications of the vast extent of the task which confronts us.

Yet this much is certain, until it is boldly grappled with, and
scholars are in possession of a complete critical edition of the
_Lancelot_ in which all the varying adventures shall be carefully
chronicled, and all the traces of earlier redactions duly noted, any
studies such as these in the preceding pages, be they the work of
scholars of the very first rank, will always be liable to the necessity
of revision, or the risk of subversion, by the accidental discovery of
some hitherto unknown factor.[212]

This appears to me to be the great and pressing question which
confronts Arthurian scholars; we desire our work to have a permanent
value, yet we are leaving undone that which, to all appearance, is the
surest means of securing such permanence.

A work of such magnitude can, I think, only be grappled with by a
body of scholars, a chief editor, assisted by a group of sub-editors.
The great extent and diffusion of the material (the _Lancelot_ MSS.
are, as I said before, practically scattered all over Europe), render
it impossible for any one man to hope to complete the task within a
reasonable term of years. I do not know what may be the principles
regarding the choice of publications by the _Sociétié des anciens
textes Français_, whether their aim be the introduction to the public
of MSS. of which unique copies alone exist, rather than to publish
critical editions of more easily accessible texts; but if the latter
should lie within their province, I cannot imagine any publication that
would be more warmly welcomed by Arthurian scholars, or that would
be of greater interest and more enduring benefit to the students of
mediæval literature, than a full and complete edition of the prose
_Lancelot_.



APPENDIX

THE DUTCH LANCELOT[213]


(Opens with short introduction alluding to Meleagant, thus
pre-supposing the _Charrette_ adventure.)

Line 20. Eight days after Whitsuntide A., his knights, and twelve
tributary kings are hunting in a forest. Guinevere and her maidens ride
to see hunt escorted by Kay, Segramore, Dodinel, and Lancelot. Knight
rides up and seizes queen's bridle. Her knights resent this. K., S.,
and D. are overthrown. L. is about to joust when maiden rides up and
demands his aid, he is pledged to her. L. asks permission to fight
first; overthrows and badly wounds knight, and follows maiden. Wounded
knight is tended by queen's people.

Line 245. Queen sends K. after L., whom he finds fighting with two
knights; K. gives him his horse; returns to queen.

Line 352. Queen is hungry. Dodinel and Segramore go to find food. Come
to a pavilion with knight, he and S. fight, D. looks on. Maid on mule
rides up, calls D. to go with her. Knight flies and S. is left alone.

Line 444. SEGRAMORE meets one of A's horsemen pursued by two (=1533=,
_three_) knights, rescues him and overthrows knights. Comes to a
pavilion; dwarf stands at door, strikes S.'s horse with stick. S.
chastises him. Lady appears and reproaches S., he is struck with her
beauty. Enters pavilion and finds Calogrenant prisoner. He had come
there and blown horn at maid's request, two armed knights appeared
and overthrew him. S. blows horn. Red Knight appears; they fight,
well-matched. A knight arrives, carries off maiden. R. K. begs truce
that he may pursue them. S. will do so too. Cal. is released (=1533=,
_R. K. remains to guard C._). S. pursues ravisher, comes to hill and
fair meadow, ten pavilions by a fountain. Knight with thirty companions
appears and demands joust. S. overthrows him and asks news of maiden.
Knight will tell him if S. will grant first request asked. Leads him
to pavilion with maid and four knights. Maid will return with S.; has
been brought against her will. A knight throws knife at S. who cleaves
his head with sword. Others attack S., who slays first, and others fly.
Rides off with maid to ten pavilions, ten knights ride out, S. must go
with them to their lord or joust; chooses latter. They ask his name, he
is _Segramore die Wonderlike_. Another knight appears, S. must leave
maiden or joust. He is Brandalis, rejoiced to meet S., would entertain
him. S. says he must return to queen who waits by 'Elfin Spring.' B.
will escort maiden to her _ami_. S. rides off to house of Mathamas
(his original destination), finds him and knights in hall, and demands
provisions for queen. M. and his men treacherously attack S., finally
overpower and throw him into dungeon, where he is wellnigh starved, but
M.'s daughter takes pity upon him, and brings him food.

Line 1050. DODINEL and maid meet knight and lady richly dressed, with
dwarf. D. greets dwarf, who makes no answer but tries to kiss maiden,
who throws him to the ground. Knight tries to kill maiden, but is
unhorsed by D. and sent prisoner to queen. He is Maroc van den Ynsen
Roken, 'twixt Ireland and Scotland. (=1533=, _Marruc le roux, no island
named_.[214])

Line 1267. LANCELOT meets a black rider unarmed with knight's head
on saddle-bow, asks L.'s name, bids him give him his armour, L. has
pledged himself so to do (reference to adv. in earlier part of prose
=L.=). L. does so. Knight is 'Griffoen van den quaden passe.' He rides
thus past the Elfin Spring. Queen sees him in L.'s armour with head at
saddle-bow and thinks L. is slain. Kay and other knights pursue him,
and are overthrown, Kay taken prisoner. Queen and maidens remain at
spring weeping.

Line 1425. LANCELOT meets maiden, who hails him as best knight in the
world, thinks he is Gawain[215] (=1533=, _knows him for L._), whose
presence in land of Strangore is much desired. Leaves him, and L. and
attendant maiden come to house, where they are well received.

Line 1480. DODINEL comes to a deep river crossed by narrow plank.
Maiden crosses safely, plank will not bear weight of an armed man. D.
falls into water and is nearly drowned. When he reaches bank maid has
disappeared. Castle near at hand, knight comes out and challenges D.,
who is too exhausted to answer and is taken prisoner.

Line 1565. QUEEN and maidens return to court in great grief, tell A.
what has chanced. (=1533=, _Queen's account does not agree with facts
of story. She says 'prisoner has gone after knight.' What prisoner?
Probably Segramore's, but she says they have heard nothing of S._) Ten
knights will go in quest of L. Gawain chooses his companions: Ywein,
Garhies (_Gariët_ general spelling), Gurrehes, Mordrec, Hestor van
Maris, Acgloval ('twas he brought Perceval to court), etc. (_Neither_
=D. L.= _nor_ =1533= _give ten names, the latter adds to those
mentioned Les Hardi [le Laid Hardi?] and Brandalis_.) They take an
oath to seek a year and a day. They ride to the 'Swerte cruce' (here
we have story of Joseph of Arimathea and King Agestes [Agrestes] from
_G. S. Graal_). Gawain harangues them, they will separate, and search
forest for a week. Hear loud cries, maiden meets them, and says best
knight on earth is being slain. Leads them to a valley where one knight
fights against ten. Gawain and companions rescue him and put others to
flight. Knight has two swords. Gawain asks reason. Knight explains.
He is Eliezer (=1533=, _Helye_), son of the rich Fisher who holds the
Grail. One sword is that with which Joseph of Arimathea was wounded
(here adventures of Joseph as in _G. S. Graal_); it is broken and can
only be mended by him who achieves adventures of the Grail. Ywein begs
E. to accompany them in their search for Lancelot, he would doubtless
fulfil the test. E. refuses, must return to his father. They separate,
agreeing if they find L. to send him to E. (which they do not do).

Line 2335. _Agloval_ rides five days without special adventure. Meets
wounded knight who prays his aid. A. jousts with and overthrows
pursuer. Makes him ask pardon of first. Spends night in castle of
second, who is Griffoen van den quaden passe. A. tells him name and
quest. G. conceals share in adventure, tells A. he will find Kay at a
hermitage. When A. has ridden away sets K. free, and tells him to go to
hermitage, not saying whence he came. K. does this, meets A., hears of
quest and follows him.

Line 2565. GAWAIN rides three days without adventure. Comes to castle
of Mathamas where Segramore is imprisoned. Being weary rides past
without greeting. M. pursues him, they joust, M. is overthrown. S. is
released and M. sent prisoner to court.

Line 2685. HECTOR[216] seeks in forest up and down for eight days;
ninth, comes to where Dodinel fell into water, crosses safely and rides
to castle. Knight attacks him and is overthrown, makes feint to yield
and tries treacherously to stab H. H. smites off his head. Folk of
castle receive him gladly, tell him of D. who is freed. Maiden explains
knight was her _ami_ and hated D. who had overthrown him at a tourney,
she had been forced to fetch him hither on pain of death. H. tells D.
of quest; he will join. Leave castle and ride to trysting-place. All
meet, have heard nothing of L. Part in great grief, knowing it will be
long before they meet again.

Line 2925. GAWAIN rides fifteen (=1533=, _twelve_) days without
adventures. Comes to an abbey where he leaves his arms and takes
others. Spends Sunday there. On Monday rides forth, comes to a spring,
unhelms to drink, maid rides up, knows him, and takes him to castle.
Lord of the castle arrives with thirty knights. A great tourney to be
held on the morrow two miles hence. Mabonars (=1533=, _Marbortas_), the
king of Galehout's race (=1533=, _Galehout's cousin_), has summoned it
at Castle 'van der Molen,' will give hawk to best knight and circlet to
his lady. Maiden prays G. to help her lover Taganas (=1533=, _Tanaguis
le blanc_). On the morrow go to tourney. Argument between maiden and 'a
king's niece' as to whose knight is the best. At first G. overthrows
all adversaries. Then Red Knight appears, prolonged struggle, G. is
unhorsed, R. K. rides away, G. follows, overtakes him at forester's
house. It is Hector, who is much grieved at what he has done. G.
forgives him, and they continue quest together. Third day (=1533=,
_time not mentioned_), come to ruined chapel and churchyard wherein
is marble tomb with inscription to effect that only the 'keytive'
knight who has failed through 'luxurien' to achieve adventure of
the Grail can fulfil this. Enter churchyard, find burning tomb with
twelve others round it, upright sword on each. G. will test adventure,
enters enclosure, is attacked by swords, beaten to the ground, when he
recovers consciousness is outside. Tries again, with even worse result.
H. also tries, fails; letters appear on the door that none shall dare
adventure till the 'son of the dolorous queen' come.[217] They leave
chapel and ride till they come to two roads by a cross on which is
written 'whoso takes left-hand road shall not escape without much
dishonour; of right-hand nothing shall be said save that there is much
danger.' H. insists on going to left though G. would dissuade him. They
separate.

Line 3535. GAWAIN comes to pavilion where six knights are at meat, he
greets them, they make no response. G. seats himself and begins to eat,
they order him to stop, and on his refusing attack him with swords and
axes. G. slays one, cuts off arm of another, rest flee. Rides away,
comes to a valley where he sees castle surrounded by deep water, goes
towards it. Hears cries from a tower, enters and finds maiden in bath
of boiling water (=1533=, _does not say water is boiling, and states
that she only expects aid from Lancelot_), prays him to lift her out;
he fails, she tells him he will not go hence without shame, and that
only 'the best knight in the world' can help her. G. goes to castle, is
well received. As they sit in the hall out of the chamber whence the
king came (=1533=, _he sees 'entrer parmi une verriere'_) there comes a
dove with censer in beak.[218] All are silent and kneel till dove has
passed through hall and entered a chamber. Then tables are prepared and
all sit down in silence. G. wonders much. Out of chamber where dove
entered comes the fairest maiden G. has ever seen, holding above her
head a vessel in the shape of a cup. The vessel 'ne was van houte ne
van stene, ne van metale negene.' All kneel as she passes, save G.,
and the tables are filled with the best food on earth. When she has
passed all but G. have been provided with food; he doubts if he has
done amiss. After the meal all leave the hall, doors are closed, and G.
is left alone. He lies down beneath a window. A man (dwarf?) appears
and tells G. to go into a chamber where none shall see him, would
strike him, but G. takes staff out of his hand, warns him he shall not
depart without dishonour. (=1533=, _G. is only told 'fuyez vous en
d'icy, vous n'y devez m'y estre, car en vous a trop villaine chose.'
G. sees bed through open door, and enters chamber of own accord._) G.
goes into the chamber, sees a fair bed and sits down upon it. Hears a
voice warning him if he sit unarmed on 't bedde van aventuren' he will
surely die. Arms himself; a sword (=1533=, _lance_) with fiery blade
enters room, smites him so sorely he cannot defend himself: becomes
unconscious, on recovery feels that blade is being drawn out of his
wound. Lies till daylight. (=1533=, _Quant il fut ennuyte si que l'en y
veoit mauvaisement fors que de la lune qui luysoit a plus de quarante
fenestres qui tout estoient ouvertes; lors regarde monseigneur G. en
une chambre qui estoit pres de lui._) Sees a great serpent enter the
hall, making fearful noise, out of its mouth come small serpents.
Leopard attacks serpent, fierce battle. When serpent finds it cannot
slay leopard returns to hall (chamber?), where the small serpents
attack it. They slay each other. A great wind rises, which sweeps
hall clean. G. hears women weeping, rises and sees twelve maidens
come weeping and kneel before door where dove went in. They depart,
and an armed knight comes and bids G. go and rest on a bed in another
chamber, he may no longer stay here. G. refuses, they fight fiercely
all day, at last fall exhausted. It begins to thunder, the whole palace
trembles, G. is deafened by the sound, knows not if it be day or night
(=1533=, _if he be living or dead_). A great wind rises (=1533=, _soft
and sweet_), and he hears voices, two hundred at least, singing so
sweetly, nothing on earth can be like to it. He cannot understand all
the words, only 'Glorie ende lof moete hebben ewelike die coninc van
hemelrike.' The palace is filled with a sweet smoke. Opens his eyes
and sees the maiden of evening before with vessel, preceded by two
censers (=1533=, _and two cierges_), places vessel on silver table, ten
censers give sweet smell around it. Voices sing 'Ere, bliscap, ende lof
moete hebben ewelike, Die soete here van hemelrike.' Maiden carries
vessel back to chamber. Hall grows dark and windows fly open (=1533=,
_and close again_). G. can see nothing, but feels he is healed of his
wounds, rises and looks for knight with whom he had fought, but can
find nothing. Hears people enter and feels himself taken by hands and
feet, bound, carried out of hall, and laid on a cart. Daylight comes,
he is still in the cart, to which a wretched horse is harnessed; feels
himself shamed. A maiden (=1533=, _une vieille_) comes and drives the
horse out, as they pass the gateway the people mock at and pelt G.
When bridge is passed maiden looses his bonds and tells him to leave
the cart, he has been there long enough. G. asks name of castle, it is
Cambonoyc.[219] He curses the day he was born and made knight to be
thus shamed. Rides all day, at evening comes to hermitage, where he
is kindly received. Hermit asks his name, and is rejoiced at hearing
it. Where has he spent the night? G. will not say at first. (=1533=,
_G. shows shame at being praised. H. comforts him; no man but knows
misfortune. G. says no man has had such ill-luck as he for fifteen
days. H. asks how, and G. tells all._) When he does tell, H. keeps
silence for a long time, then tells him he has seen the Holy Grail, his
own sin prevented him from being fed by it. (=1533=, _quant vous ne luy
feistes honeur bien vous deistes mesadvenir_.)[220] G. asks meaning of
serpent; it is A. his uncle. He shall leave his kingdom in charge of
his kinsmen and go to fight a knight whom he cannot overcome; on his
return his own kinsmen shall fight against, and slay him. It shall come
about through G. himself. He must swear not to reveal what H. has told
him to any one. G. spends night there, and in morning rides forth to
seek Hector.

Line 4260. HECTOR rides till eventide, meets a dwarf, who warns him,
but will give no explanation. H. rides on and comes to a stone on which
it is written, that no one enters this land save to his shame. Then
meets two maidens who lament over him. Comes to a castle surrounded by
water, over which is a bridge. A maiden sitting under a tree greets him
kindly, and tells him there is a knight at the bridge who jousts with
all comers, and throws the vanquished into the water. H. overthrows
knight and crosses bridge. The gates are closed, none may enter save by
swearing to put an end to the evil customs of the castle. H. swears and
enters. Asks what are the customs. There is an evil knight there who
fights with all who come; if victorious he drives them naked through
the streets; also he has dishonoured more than one hundred (=1533=,
_forty_) noble maidens. H. bids them lead him to knight. They take him
to a fair garden, well planted with trees, in the midst of which is an
open space. They show him an ivory horn hanging on a tree, if he sound
it the knight will come.[221] He does so and a 'hunch-backed and ugly'
(=1533=, _grant_) knight, on a white horse, appears unarmed, and asks
H. his name. If he will swear to renounce evil customs H. will tell
him, not otherwise; knight prefers to fight. Folk tell H. it was a ruse
coming to him unarmed, had he made terms and disarmed, he would have
been overpowered at once. Knight returns in red armour. After fierce
fight H. slays him and learns he must now deliver lady of the castle,
who is in a cave guarded by two leopards (=1533=, _lyons_). This he
does; slays leopards and releases lady, who is joyfully received by
the people. She is Argale van Grakenlant (=1533=, _Grindelain_), and
Lancelot's cousin. The knight was Margarij (=1533=, _Maugart le Roux_);
she is concerned to hear of L.'s disappearance.

Line 4812. YWEIN rides three (=1533=, _four_) days without adventure.
Fourth meets a maiden who laughs as she sees him. Y. asks reason, she
will tell him if he will promise her a gift that will cost him little.
Y. promises. A knight has threatened to take her horse, because his
_amie_ reproached him with having done little for her honour. Will Y.
give her the knight's horse? She knows Y. and his fame, and therefore
laughed for joy on meeting him. He consents and they ride together.
Knight comes out from his pavilion and demands Y.'s horse. Y. will
fight for it. They do so and the knight is slain (=1533=, _apparently
not, the lady only thinks he is dead_), and his horse is given to
maiden, who goes her way rejoicing. Y. rides till evening, when he
meets a maiden lamenting loudly; a knight has taken from her the hawk
her _ami_ gave her, _he_ will think she gave it willingly and slay her
for jealousy. Y. bids her lead him to tent of knight who stole hawk;
she does so, and Y. bids her go in and take it. Knight objects, they
fight. Both are wounded, knight mortally; prays for hermit that he may
receive last sacraments. Y. sends maiden, and himself finally returns
with hermit, who tends him for fifteen days till wounds are healed.

Line 5070. MORDRET, Gawain's youngest brother, rode all day with
nothing to eat, weary, because he was young, only twenty; fair-haired
and good to look upon, but evil at heart. Description of brothers:
Gawain fairest, courteous to all, especially the poor[222] (=1533=,
_fist voluntiers bien aux meseaulx plus que a autres gens_.) His
strength doubles, at certain times, as he fights (not specified,
=1533= says, _toutes heures du iour_), so that none can overcome him,
he will either conquer or be slain. A good knight in all things, and
faithful to his lord. Courteous to all women, and not given to boast
of his deeds. Agravain, handsome and valiant, but of bitter tongue;
'Lancelot slew him as ye shall hear' (_omitted in_ =1533=), Garhiës
(later on Gariëtte) (_Gaheriet_, =1533=) more courteous than any of the
others 'save Gawain' (_omitted in_ =1533=). His right arm was longer
than his left, so that he did great deeds of knighthood (=1533= adds,
_most gentle of all, and most relentless when wrathful_). Gurrehies
(=1533=, _Gueresches_) very valiant, fond of deeds of knighthood, never
took any rest. Handsome in face and more fastidious in dress than the
others. Much loved of ladies. Gawain's favourite, and youngest save
Mordret.[223] Mordret was valiant, but an evil knight, save for first
two years of his knighthood. 'He did more harm in his life than all
his brethren did good, for fifteen thousand[224] valiant knights were
slain in one day because of him, and he himself died there too' (=1533=
_omits this_).

Line 5250. MORDRET spends night at castle of a lady (=1533=, _widow_),
who treats him well. Next morning he rides on his way, comes to two
pavilions; at door of one is a horse ready saddled, and armour. Dwarf
comes out with bow and arrow, and shoots M.'s horse dead. M. would
chastise dwarf, but owner arrives and challenges M. They fight, and
knight is slain. M. takes horse and goes on his way. Comes to a tent
where is a fair maiden; she will lodge M. if her lover does not object;
if he does, M. must go. They fall in love; M. prays her favours and
is not refused. Lover arrives; M. may stay when he tells his name;
would do anything for Gariëtte's brother. Two knights come, with
squire bearing venison. M. is well treated. He prays maiden to come
to him when her lover is asleep. After some demur, she does so. Lover
awakes, finds M. and maiden together, reproaches him; he cannot be G.'s
brother, or he would not have acted thus. They fight; M. being the
younger and stronger, makes him swear to pardon lady. Next morning he
rides away.

Line 5530. AGRAVAIN comes to a fair tent, where there is a dead knight
on a bier, a maiden and wounded knight beside him. A. asks explanation.
Dead knight was brother to the other. On their way to A.'s court they
came to the 'Keytiven berch.' A knight, Dryas (=1533=, _Druas_),
attacked them, they were unarmed; one was slain, the other fled. Dryas
sent the body after him. He slays all who come to this place. A. says
he will avenge him; is warned if he slay D. not to sound ivory horn
dwarf will proffer, or D.'s brother, twice as fierce as he, will
come from the other side of the mountain. A. goes forth, comes to a
fountain; is challenged by D., slays him and gives head to knight,
who is much rejoiced, even more when he knows A.'s name. A. returns;
finds dwarf and maiden lamenting over D.'s body. Dwarf offers A. horn,
which he blows loudly, all know D. is slain. His brother Sornahan
(=1533=, _Sornehault_) arms and comes to avenge him. They fight, both
are thrown. A. is unconscious. S. is about to slay him, when maid rides
up, demands a boon, which S. grants: it is A.'s life. S. will keep him
in prison though maid warns him Gawain is in the land, and will avenge
his brother. S. has a wall built all round the mount, with notice that
whoever would enter must first fight with him.

Line 6095. GURRËES (=1533=, _Gueresches_) rides through thicket forty
miles long, ten (=1533=, _forty_) wide; finds knights ill-treating old
knight, rescues him. His son had accidentally slain his cousin, his
sister's son (=1533=, _a maiden_); in revenge the brothers have slain
son, and would have slain him, but for G. G. goes with him to castle,
most kindly received. Offers his love to daughter; she asks who he is,
when she hears, says he is too rich and well-born for her. Asks him
name of knight who bears certain arms; it is Lancelot. G. would fain
know what has become of him. Peasant comes lamenting, he had fled from
armed knight and wolves had slain his ass in forest, has lost means
of living. G. was the knight; prays his host to give peasant horse
for his sake, which he does. During night nephews attack castle, are
repulsed; pray for peace. G. advises host to make peace as they are
such near kinsmen; he consents. G. leaves castle, comes to fountain in
plain, where three ladies are seated, one sixty years old, one forty,
one less than twenty; youngest very poorly dressed. G. asks cause of
her grief; her husband is very jealous because she had praised Lancelot
unduly, has taken away her rich clothes, and forced her to eat with the
servants. Oldest lady is in woe because she has been forced to promise
her daughter to knight of low birth, who has murdered one wife already.
Asks G.'s advice. He tells her to keep her word, and he will free the
daughter. They go to castle together; knight arrives and claims maiden,
mother gives her up. As they ride off G. says _he_ loves maiden, will
fight for her, follows and slays knight. Beseeches maiden's love, but
she refuses; she loves another, and G. restores her to her mother
in safety. Will not stay, but will at once seek castle of lady with
jealous husband. She receives him well; her husband is away, but
returns shortly, and though angry, allows G. to stay. Meanwhile another
knight arrives, Segramore. Husband, very wroth, plots to slay them;
but page overhears and tells lady, who warns them. They prepare, and
when host would pick quarrel with S., slay him to joy of lady and her
relatives. Next morning G. and S. depart, come to thirteen pavilions,
must joust ere they go farther. Each unhorses his adversary; may depart
with honour. Owner of pavilions is Count Wigans (=1533=, _Gimas_),
hearing Gawain was in the land, has come out to seek jousts. Ride on,
meet sister of Agloval, seeking her brother; S. will escort her. G.
goes on alone.

Line 7840. GURRËES comes to four tents, in first a meal spread;
second, four coffers, and a dwarf sleeping; third, two maidens; fourth,
maid and knight. G. eats, and goes to sleep in last tent by maiden.
Knight awakes, drags G. out of bed; G. seizes sword and smites off
knight's head (=1533=, _cleaves him in two_); lady much grieved, it
was her husband. G., smitten with her, forces her to ride with him.
Come to a forest; knight challenges G. and is slain. Next day four
brothers of lady overtake them, but are overthrown by G. Come to Abbey
of White Nuns. Lady takes veil, she is of high birth; Lancelot, Lionel,
and Bohort are her kinsmen. G. rides on, comes to Sornahan's Mount,
is overthrown, and shares fate of Agravain. S.'s niece treats the
prisoners well.

Line 8540. GARIËTTE meets a maiden seeking Lancelot, and they ride
together. Her brother-in-law has seized her lands, and she seeks one of
A.'s knights to fight with him. G. promises to do so. Come to an abbey,
see maid's uncle, who encourages G. Reach pavilions of Count Glimas
(cf. _supra_), joust, and G. overthrows count himself, whom he sends
prisoner to Gawain. Count treats them well. Next morning they go on;
meet six knights, with knight and maiden, whom they are treating very
cruelly. Knight is Brandalis of the R. T.; by his oath of fellowship G.
must aid him first. Gosennes van Strangeloet comes up and frees maiden,
who is so much hurt she lives but six days. G. returns to maid he is
escorting. They ride on and come to tent where is a dwarf (=1533=,
_three pavilions, dwarf in first_), he will lodge them if his master
permits; G. promises to leave if he objects. Knight comes with two
maidens; ill-treats dwarf. G. interferes, overcomes knight, and makes
him ask pardon of dwarf. G. has already slain his nephews (=1533=, _he
was one of the knights who had taken Brandalis_.)[225] Next morning
they ride on, and come to land of lady of Roestoc, where fight is to
be fought. Rejoiced to see G. for sake of Gawain, who had fought for
her against Segurades, 'alse hier voren gescreven es,' l. 9366. (This
evidently refers to the earlier part of the _Lancelot_, and makes it
probable that the Dutch compiler had also translated the first part
of the work.) Fierce fight between G. and Gindan, the brother-in-law.
Latter, seeing he is over-matched, jumps into river and is drowned;
maiden regains her land. G. departs; meets a maid who reproaches him
with cowardice: he did not free captive maiden, and has allowed his
two brothers to be in prison. G. explains conditions of his vow, and
asks about brothers. She tells him, and he rides to Sornahan's Mount,
overthrows him, and frees Agravain and Gurries. S. _did not know who
they were_. (This is a contradiction of previous statement, that maiden
tells him A.'s name and threatens him with Gawain's anger.) Brothers
stay three days till wounds are healed, then ride forth. First night
lodge with hermit; second, with rich man, who warns them not to seek
Lancelot in that land; there is civil war, the duke's six sons have
rebelled against him because he made his daughter and her husband his
heirs; they have slain these two. The three agree to help duke, ride
to castle, overthrowing two knights on their way. Duke accepts their
aid, but does not know who they are. Great battle, Agravain is taken
prisoner, but exchanged for two of the sons.

Line 10735. ARTHUR and court are much distressed; do not know how
adventure of the Grail is to be achieved if Lancelot be dead. (It is
not explained how they know of the Grail, nor is it clear whether L.
is to achieve it personally, or through agency of Galahad.) Lionel
returns, and is much distressed at news. Questions wounded knight, who
proves to be Bohort. (The reason for B.'s attempt to lead away the
queen is given in the earlier section of the _Lancelot_, so far as
=D. L.= is concerned it is not explained.) Maiden comes from Lady van
Galvoye to beg aid, wants Lancelot or Gawain, if both absent, will have
B. B. and L. go with messenger. Queen gives B. a ring for Lancelot; if
any one find him it will be B.

Line 11167. QUEEN has dream L. is faithless to her. Very ill. When
better sends her niece to 'Moustier Royale' to find Lady of the Lake,
and bid her come to Guinevere.

Line 11520. LANCELOT, six weeks before wounds are healed, then sets
forth, and finds maiden lamenting, her sister had been carried off, and
her lover slain in defending her. She has been to A.'s court, but they
are too sorrowful to give aid. L. will help her if she will go errand
for him. She leads him to tower, knight too wounded to resist, frees
damsel. Maiden must now go to court, say she has seen a knight who had
eaten with L. 'and slept in same bed' (_not in_ =1533=). All greatly
rejoiced. A. gives maid a castle.

Line 11870. LANCELOT rides with sister, comes to a fountain, where two
knights and two ladies are at a meal. They ask L. to join them. One
maiden falls in love with L. L. drinks from spring, two vipers have
poisoned it, is very ill, and is nursed by maiden. While still ill,
Bohort and Lionel find him, and he sends his hair, which has fallen
out, to queen, who is much rejoiced. (Love complications between maiden
and L. Lionel again sent to queen, this time for advice. Maid swears to
remain virgin for L.'s sake; L. will be her knight.) When cured L. and
maiden ride on, come to castle of the six brothers, who make up false
tale as to their cause. L. believes them, and fights for them. Duke
is killed, and the three sons of King Lot taken prisoners. L. is much
distressed, bids them be well treated, and rides off, hiding his name.

(Here follows his slumber in forest with Lionel, when latter is carried
off by Tarquin; L.'s being taken by the queens; released by daughter of
Duke of Rochedon, and attending tourney. All this has been commented
upon in chap. ix.)

Line 14580. LANCELOT at the Grail Castle. This has also been previously
noticed.

Line 15353. LANCELOT leaves castle, and comes to another 'surrounded
by water' (_detail omitted in_ =1533=). Knight challenges him; lost
in thought, L. does not hear, but rides over bridge, and is thrust
from horse into water; gates closed, must spend night in wood. Sits by
spring, three (=1533=, _four_) knights ride up, with maid who cured
L. of poison; have carried her off against her will. She says were L.
there they would not have dared. Knights say L.'s father was a coward,
he must be one too; would do violence to lady. L. appears and rescues
her, slaying one knight. They ride to castle of lady's kinswoman,
where they spend the night. Next day L. will go to castle where he
lost his horse. Host would dissuade him; failing, rides with him. Asks
does he know Hector. Tells him H. is his brother (as H. is previously
represented as one of A.'s most valiant knights, it is difficult to
understand how L. comes to be ignorant on this point). The knight at
castle is H.'s uncle. Would not joust with L., but thinks this is not
he. Is overthrown. L. is welcomed by lady of the castle, who tells
him H. is her son and his brother. L. next comes to forest, with
hermit's cell and chapel at entrance, with notice warning knights to
go no further. Hermit begs L. not to attempt the adventure; it is 'Der
Verlorenen Forest'; has seen a hundred knights (=1533=, _two hundred
within half-year_) enter, but none have ever returned. L. insists on
going on (=1533=, _stays night with H._). Meets maiden, who warns him
he goes to his death. Comes to a clearing where is a company of knights
and maidens dancing and singing; feels compelled to join them. Squire
leaves him and returns.

Line 16260. YWEIN stays at hermitage till wounds are healed, then
rides forth. Meets dwarf, maiden has stolen his brachet; will Y. get
it back for him? Promises to do so. Maid and knight ride up. Y. bids
dwarf take dog; does so. Y. and knight fight fiercely; finally find it
is Bohort, rejoiced to meet each other. Dwarf tells them L. is well,
was at tourney lately (=1533=, _also gives news of intended tourney at
Kamalot_). They separate. Y. goes to an Abbey of White Nuns, is healed
of his wounds. Rides forth. Meets lady thrashing a dwarf, bids her
stop; she will, if Y. will do what she wants; promises. He must kiss
her; so ugly he hesitates. She reproaches him; he is certainly not Y.,
she will go to court and complain of him. Y. calls her back. She will
let him off if he will fetch sword, shield, and helmet from tent near
by. Dwarf warns Y. she is most treacherous lady in land. Y. will go.
Rides with her, takes arms, leaving his own in their place. Maidens
rush out of tent weeping and tearing their hair. He has dishonoured all
maidens in the land, will come to shame. Y. asks explanation. They will
not answer; he waits till evening, and as no one comes rides on to a
hermitage, where he is well received. H. asks if custom still maintains
that no man may sit at R. T. unless he be wounded. Custom given up
since Lancelot, Galehaut, and Hector were admitted unwounded. Now each
knight must vanquish one at least in week following, or forfeit seat
(=1533=, _must have done so in preceding week_), (ll. 16770-875).
Y. asks of shield; belongs to a giant who had wasted the land, but
for love of a maiden had promised to remain in castle unless one did
him shame. After a year (=1533=, _longuement y avoit été_), becoming
weary, had sought chance of release, so had hung up shield, setting
twelve maidens to watch it (=1533=, _the people of the land had set
the watch_). Now he will be free, land wasted and maids dishonoured.
Y. rides on, bearing shield; all flee from him (=1533=, _two maidens
only_). Finds two maids by spring; they bid him eat with them, does
so. Knight comes up, would fight with Y. for having released giant. Is
overcome. Y. sends him to giant to tell him who it is who has taken the
shield. Knight goes, giant strikes off his hand for tidings (=1533=,
_giant gives him his choice: he may lose his hand for the shield or
his head for the helmet_),[226] and rides through land destroying
and slaying wherever he goes. Y. rides on, seeking shelter; no one
will have him. At one castle fights with father and son. Sleeps under
tree. Is wakened by sound of giant, who makes more noise than twenty
(=1533=, _twelve_) knights. Y. calls him, but he is too angry to hear.
Y. mounts and rides after him. Comes to 'Castel van den Trepasse'; five
(=1533=, _fifteen_) knights fall upon him, kill his horse, and make him
prisoner; will deliver him to giant.

Line 17470. BOHORT comes to lady of Galvoye. She has been deprived of
a castle by a knight, and needs champion; fight to be fought at King
Pelles's court. Come to Corbenic. King and daughter rejoiced to see B.;
tell him of L.'s great deeds. Fights with and overcomes knight. Sees
Grail. Does not sleep in 'palace of adventures.' Next morning comes to
a hermit, who knew his father and King Ban. Tells him how his father
had built this chapel in memory of a victory gained over King Cerces,
and given it a golden (=1533=, _silver_) crown won from king's steward.
B. leaves, meets maiden, who reproaches him for having left Grail
castle without testing adventures, should have slept in hall. (_Here_
=1533= _gives adventure of a lady whose brother has been taken prisoner
while seeking a sparrow-hawk. B. frees him._) Returns to Kamalot.

Line 18070. GAWAIN meets the maid who cured L. of poison, and was
rescued by him. Assures him L. is well. They ride together to court.

Line 18130. LANCELOT at the '_caroles_' sits on throne in centre of
ring, and has crown placed on head. Enchantment ceases. Maid explains
it has lasted ever since King Ban came there on his way from A.'s
wedding. With him was a youth, his nephew, learned in necromancy. Fell
in love with maiden sitting on throne, and for her sake wove spell
that dance should continue till fairest and bravest knight on earth
came.[227] Also made chessboard of gold and silver, which plays of
itself against all men. At last clerk and maiden died, but spell was
not broken. L. plays with chessboard and wins; enchantment ceases for
ever. Chessboard is sent as present to Guinevere. L. leaves castle,
meets knight, who threatens him, but flies when L. would fight. Comes
to a high tower where party of knights lie in wait for him. They attack
him, overthrow and bind him, and cast him into pit infested with
serpents. Maid releases him. Her father was nephew to Duke Karles whom
L. has slain. Squire warns his lord of L.'s escape; he arms his knights
and attacks L., who takes refuge in maiden's room. L. slays nineteen
(=1533=, _more than twenty-four_). Father jumps out of the window, and
breaks his neck. L. tells maiden all are slain. She seeks father's
body, cannot find it, so thinks he has escaped. L. throws corpses out
of windows. They go to rest, and maiden has dream which terrifies her
much. Next morning they ride out together; hear cries for help, find
knight ill-treating lady, and bids him stop, when he strikes off her
head and throws it in L.'s face. (This is the adventure in =M.=, Book
VI., and has been commented upon earlier.)

Line 19179. LANCELOT rides back to maiden, finds her gone. Meets
knight, who asks if he has seen knight and maiden (=1533=, _two knights
and maid_), asks for his maiden. She has been carried off by four
knights. L. pursues. Finds them about to burn her. L. slays twenty
(?), rescues maid: this was meaning of her dream. Knights were her
brother and three of his followers. Come to house of lady, where they
stay fourteen days, till L. is cured from bites of serpents in the
pit. Ride together. Come to 'Castle of the Charrette.' Lad meets them;
rejoiced at L.'s coming. Daughter of Duke of Rochedon, who freed L.
from prison of queen, is to be married against her will to brother of
Queen of Foreestan; it was he who slew her betrothed, his own nephew.
L. enters church, challenges knight, who flies; lady receives her lands
again. Morgain le Fay is there, bids L. unhelm, 'in the name of her
whom he loves best.' They reproach each other, and M. threatens L. with
punishment. L. and maid depart as quickly as possible, fearing M.'s
spells.

Line 19525. How knight with dead maiden fulfils L.'s commands, and body
is buried.

Line 19595. LANCELOT comes to Kamalot; lodges with hermit for tourney.
Sends maiden with letter to queen. She receives heritage for the one
lost. King Ider, jealous of L. King and queen say he could overthrow
all R. T. Knights very angry at this, except Gawain (=1533=, _and
Bohort_). Queen sends message to L. to come secretly and discomfit
knights. L. is recognised by King Bagdemagus, who will aid him. L.
comes in red armour, does great deeds till he beholds queen, when he
nearly swoons, and is carried off the field by K. B. R. T. knights get
best of it. Queen sends message by Bohort to tell L. to come secretly
that evening (maid of poison cure is there; queen is at first jealous,
then satisfied). Ider praises Red Knight, says L. would not have done
so well. Queen makes King B. challenge A. to another tourney in three
days. L. spends each night with queen. Third day she arms him in white,
Bohort in red. L. not to enter field till after tierce. He overthrows
and wounds Gawain and Gariëtte, and scatters knights of R. T. A. bids
him unhelm, is joyful at recognising L. Sunday, great feast made in
his honour. Chessboard is brought, all play and are beaten save L.
Clerk writes down on oath all L.'s adventures in book, which was found
after king's death. All others tell their story. A. says L. has done
more for honour of R. T. than all the rest put together; they are very
jealous. Decide to go forth and seek all who have not returned from
quest. Gawain will seek his three (=1533=, _four_) brothers. (Confusion
here; when we last heard of Agravain, Gurrëes, and Gariëtte they
were prisoners. How did latter return for tourney? =D. L.= probably
saw this, and only mentions three brothers, including Mordred, while
=1533= says four, which is certainly wrong.) Bohort will seek Hector
and Lionel. (=1533=, _Will join quest; they shall not go without him.
H. and L. are not mentioned._) Queen and L. talk over adventure of
churchyard as told by Gawain. She is sure L. is knight meant to achieve
it, and is very sad; he will fail through his sinful love for her. L.
says he has more bliss from her love than from any feats of arms, all
he has done has been inspired by her. King Bagdemagus is made knight
of R. T.

Line 21596. LANCELOT, Bagdemagus, Gariëtte, and Bohort set forth;
Gawain will follow when wounds are healed. Come to castle of 'Witten
Dorne,' meet knight on horseback, naked, beaten, and ill-used by one
hundred men; it is Mordret. Lord of the castle is Matheus die felle
(=1533=, _Marchant li felon_). G. releases M., attack castle, slay lord
and scatter his people. Ride fifteen days till they come to castle
where Y. is in prison. Host refuses lodging; hates A.; has one of his
knights in prison. They attack castle, and release Y. Are told of the
giant, he will come on the morrow, host had meant to give Y. up to
him. B. asks boon of L., that he may fight giant. L. unwilling, but
consents. Great fight, giant is slain. Next morning all ride forth
(seven). Y. suggests they should separate. All ride different ways,
meet again at castle on All Saints Day.[228]

Line 22120. LANCELOT rides fifteen days, meets maiden, asks her of
Lionel. She tells him, and promises to lead him to Tarquin's castle,
if he will promise to go with her wherever she pleases afterwards. He
agrees. (Adventure with Tarquin has been commented upon in chap. ix. p.
154.)

Line 22600. LANCELOT. Maiden leads him to knight who steals horses;
maid rides first, L. after; knight attacks maid and is slain by L.
Rests eight days till wounds are healed. Then would find Hector.
(=1533=, _Meets old man who tells him H. had slain knight there
previous day, shows him road_.) Adventures at castle (cf. chap. ix. p.
155). Finds at castle squire from A.'s court, bids him lead his horses
into 'ten Verlorene foreeste' and wait for him at cross. Comes with two
knights whom he dismisses, rides into forest, meets maiden who says she
is seeking him to achieve an adventure. Emissary of Morgain's leads
him to tower; drugs him. M. comes, blows powder up his nostrils, which
deprives him of his senses; when he recovers he is in prison. Sees man
in outer hall illuminating, begs brush and colours, and paints on walls
of prison history of his love for queen. M. sees this, and resolves to
show it to A.

Line 23146. GAWAIN comes first to Tarquin's castle, now owned by 'Grave
van den Parke,' who tells him of L.'s feat. Then to hermitage, finds
King B. sick, has heard of L. slaying owners of Castle Vaguel. Tells
him of _rendezvous_ for All Saints. L. will surely be there. B. had
helped Gurrëes against four knights and been badly wounded. G. offers
to stay with him, but B. will not allow it.

Line 23260. Tryst at castle. All meet save L. and Bohort. Gawain says
'twould be great shame to return to court without them, will seek till
S. Mary Magdalene's Day, then quest will have lasted a year and a day.
All separate, agreeing to meet again at castle. 'Some ride all year,
some are taken prisoners' (_omitted by_ =1533=), finally only Mordret,
Agloval (=1533=, _Agravain_) and Bagdemagus return. Much perplexed.
Decide to send messenger secretly to court, to know if anything has
been heard of questers. Finding nothing is known, swear to ride till
they find their comrades.

Line 23388. LANCELOT lies all winter a prisoner, when summer comes
(=1533=, _two winters, one summer, second spring_), scent of flowers
and sight of roses remind him of Guinevere. Tears out bars of window
and escapes, leaving insulting message with porter for M. Meets
maiden, who tells him Lionel is prisoner in castle of King Vagor of
Estrangeloet. Challenged by king's son; unless he can find someone to
take his place will be overcome. L. will go. Meets wounded knight on
litter, if L. will lodge in his castle will meet one of A.'s knights
who lies sick there. He himself has been wounded by shot from maiden's
bow, and iron cannot be pulled out till best knight in world comes. Has
been to A's court, but useless till L. returns. A. is much distressed
at absence of Gawain and L.[229] Go to castle, L. asks to be allowed
to try to pull out shaft. Knight says it is no use to try unless he be
L. Does not reveal name. Would see sick knight, it is King B., wounded
in a tourney. Rejoiced to see L., tells him of quest. L. leaves next
day, and B. tells knight who he was. Knight follows in litter. L. comes
to the castle 'dat fremde eylant,' meets squire, who tells him Lionel
is there, L. says he is one of A.'s knights. Will fight instead of
Lionel. King receives him well; Lionel is joyful. A lady had accused
him falsely to her husband, they fought, and husband was slain, he was
king's son. Brother challenged Lionel, who being too badly wounded
to fight at once had been imprisoned lest he escape. L. fights and
is victorious, peace is made, and the two cousins ride off together.
Knight in litter follows on their tracks. They come to an abbey,
'Celice' or 'die cleine aelmoesene' in die 'Mersce van Scollant.' (Here
follows long story as to origin of abbey.)

Line 24454. LANCELOT hears at abbey of castle near by,[230] 'die
verbodene berch,' a knight had built it for love of his lady, only
a narrow footpath leads to it. At abbey shields of knights of R. T.
overthrown by knight of castle; them he keeps in prison, all others
he slays. L. sees shields of Gawain, Ywein, and others (=1533=, _does
not mention Ywein_), and decides to rescue them. At foot of hills
finds hermit, who foretells his success. Finds cross with inscription,
for forty (=1533=, _twenty_) years all who came have been vanquished,
'save one, and he doubtless was of David's line' (_omitted in_ =1533=).
Goes on, finds pavilion with dwarf, who warns him not to fight, shows
him a horn he must blow. Prisoners in castle warn him; sees Gawain,
wounded in the head. Knight appears. Fierce fight, finally L. gets
the better of his foe, who is Bohort (=1533=, _names B. in middle of
fight, apparently forgetting that no one knows who he is_), he had
overcome knight of castle two years (=1533=, _one year_) ago, and been
forced to take his place (by whom?). He may imprison his comrades but
must slay all others; did not know their names, would not ask them.
(How, then, did he know they _were_ his comrades?) He is much ashamed
and apologises to knights; all are rejoiced to see L. Stay there
that night. L. has wonderful dream. Old man appears, and bids him
ride without delay to 'ten Vreschlichen woude,' where he will find a
wondrous adventure. He is his grandfather. L. rises, arms, and rides
away at once. 'Comrades depart together' (_omitted in_ =1533=).

Line 25150. LANCELOT meets dwarf, who warns him of great adventures.
Comes to hermitage by a fountain, where is a bleeding tomb guarded by
two leopards (=1533=, _lyons_), whom L. slays. Sees head in fountain,
water is boiling, but takes head out and lays it in tomb; it is his
grandfather's body, treacherously slain by a kinsman on a Good Friday.
Fountain will not cease boiling till one comes who can bring adventure
to end, which he cannot, on account of his sin with Guinevere.[231] L.
rides on, comes to forest full of wild beasts. Rescues boy from bear.
Rides in search of lodging. Moon rises. Sees white hart with gold chain
round neck, guarded by six leopards (=1533=, _lyons_), marvels much;
swears not to leave forest till he has learnt meaning. Comes to two
pavilions, asks lodging. Must joust with owner; does so, and slays him;
twelve maidens make great lamentations, carry off body on bier; he was
a great king. L. is much distressed. Knight comes and asks lodging.
Had kept Easter at A.'s court. All sorrowful because of absence of L.
and G.; but joyful news has come that he who shall achieve adventure
of Grail is born of Fisher King's daughter.[232] He seeks fountain
of Sycamores, where a valiant knight has overthrown Gawain and Ywein;
twelve have made a vow to seek it. Boy knows road, will lead knight to
it. On the morrow they separate; knight, Sarras van Logres, comes to
fountain, fights with Belyas the Black, and is overthrown. L., who has
followed secretly, comes up, overthrows B., gives S. his horse; tells
him his name, and bids him return to court, saying he and all questers
are well, and will be at court for Pentecost. S. rides off, meets
wounded knight seeking L.; directs him. Comes to court on a Sunday; all
are rejoiced at news. A. will hold great feast in their honour.

Line 26045. Maid sent by queen to Lady of the Lake comes to court
of King Claudas; who asks tidings of L. and kinsmen. Maid says they
are best and bravest knights alive, and will certainly come and slay
him, and take back their lands. Claudas imprisons maiden, and sends
messengers to court to see if her tale be true. One is so impressed
that he becomes A.'s man; other returns and tells C. what he has seen.
First tells queen fate of maiden; she writes to C. bidding him free
her. C. returns insulting answer. Queen, much distressed, longs for
L.'s return.

Line 26630. LANCELOT. When Sarras has left him, another knight appears,
like Belyas. They fight; knight flies, pursued by L. to castle near
at hand. L.'s horse is slain; but he slays all who attack him, and
reaches garden, where in tent, guarded by four knights, he finds
Mordret chained. L. releases him, and they escape together. Belyas and
Bryadas had wished to be knights of R. T. A. refused, not knowing them.
They had sworn to keep fountain against all comers; L. has mortally
wounded both. L. meets wounded knight, whom he heals at last, sending
message to King B. that questers are found; also to those released at
'Verbodene berch,' bidding them meet him at court. Gawain is ready,
but Ywein demurs, all are not found yet. G. says duration of quest
should be year and day, they have been away three years. All agree
to go. (This seems to indicate that =1533= was correct in not noting
their departure earlier, as =D. L.= does, thus contradicting itself.
Probably an earlier redaction did make them leave at once, while a
later introduced more of L.'s adventures. This points to the later
interpolation of 'tomb' adventures.) B. knights one of the squires,
'Axille die blonde,' and gives him the castle.

Line 27236. GAWAIN and comrades come to a castle by a deep water, where
men are erecting lodges for a tourney. It is the castle of Galehoudijn,
'neve' of _Gawain_ (obvious mistake for Gallehault), (=1533=, _son of
Gallehault and la belle Géande_, but she was Gallehault's mother).
Conceal their names, are well received and lodged outside castle.
Hear a tumult, and see Agloval pursued by forty armed men. Go to his
aid, and slay many. Their host is much distressed; they tell him they
are of A.'s court. Galehoudijn arrives; is angry at first, but when
Gawain reveals their names, is much rejoiced, does them great honour,
and knights their host. (=1533= _is very confused here, persistently
calling Galehoudijn, Gallehault; correcting mistake, and then relapsing
again._)

Line 27735. LANCELOT[233] and MORDRET ride till nightfall. See white
hart and leopards; decide to follow them. Two knights ride suddenly
out of side road, unhorse them and take their steeds. Dwarf appears,
will lead them to horses, if they will give him a gift. Promise; he
leads them to two pavilions where they find their horses, and go off
with them. Come to a hermitage, where they spend the night. L. asks
H. of white hart; mystery may not be revealed till 'the good knight'
come. Asks of king whom he slew, and who was mourned by maidens (cf.
_supra_, p. 239), he was named Merlan, from 'die Marchen van Scollant,'
a wicked man; L. did well to slay him. Next morning they ride away;
are attacked by knights who stole their horses. M. overthrows them,
and gives knights' horses to L. Spend this night with 'Vavasseur,' who
tells them of Galehoudijn's tourney. They will go, host with four sons
(_no number in_ =1533=) to attend them. Next morning they ride to hear
Mass. Meet an old man who prophesies M. shall be ruin of kingdom and
death of his father, 'who is a mightier king than K. Lot.' M., angry,
smites off his head. L. finds letter on dead man saying who M. really
is. Would slay him and avert mischief, but for love of Gawain, whose
brother he is. Come to tourney. Kings of Norgales and of a hundred
knights there. L. discomfits all comers. Then rides out of press
followed by Bohort, who suspects his identity. Meet, and agree to ride
to court together.

Line 28835. GAWAIN and his companions are much annoyed when they find
they have missed L. again. Agree to return to court, each going his own
way.

Line 29018. LANCELOT and BOHORT see a fire, hear cries for help. B.
goes to see, and finds maiden and brother being ill-treated by eight
knights; slays three, rest fly. B. returns to L. who has disappeared;
spends night in forest. (=1533=, _goes with maid, who is daughter of
king of a hundred knights, to lodging, then with brother to find L.;
not doing so, returns and spends night with them. Departs next morning,
and hears L. has been seen chasing a knight._)

Line 29095. BOHORT, second visit to Grail castle. Tempts its
adventures. Cf. _supra_, pp. 160, 233.

Line 29695. LANCELOT comes to two tents, light, and a maiden and dwarf
in one, asks for lodging. Her lover will not allow her to give it.
Knight and brother ride up, throw L.'s armour out of tent. Fight. L.
slays one and wounds the other. Rides to a hermitage where he passes
night. Next day meets two maidens sitting by spring, would eat with
them. Maiden pursued by black knight runs up asking for aid, before
L. can reach his sword she is slain. L. very angry smites off knight's
head. Fourth night comes to forester's house in moon light.

Line 29952. LANCELOT and KAY. Cf. _supra_, p. 156.

Line 30380. LANCELOT after overthrowing knight of R. T. comes to two
pavilions, in one of which is maiden who cured him of poison. Sees
Bohort's son. Cf. _supra_, p. 157.

Line 30584. GAWAIN and his comrades return to court and hang up shield
L. has thrown down in middle of hall; telling how they were overthrown.
Queen much distressed that L. has not come, gives them rich garments in
order of valour. Bohort is best, then Gawain, Hector, Gariëtte, Lionel,
Bagdemagus (=1533= _omits Hector but gives others in same order_).
Kay arrives in L.'s armour. Other knights overthrown by L. come and
recognise shield. Next morning L. is seen coming, go out to meet him,
joust, and Gawain overthrows him, L.'s horse being weary. Great Feast,
A.D. 426 (=1533=, A.D. 225). A knight in white armour comes weeping, he
is probably going to his death. Gives L. a letter--if he dies he is to
read it aloud, if he survives return it. Sits in Perilous Seat, fire
descends and consumes him. He was Brumal (=1533=, _Brumant_), nephew of
King Claudas, who had vowed to prove himself a better knight than L.
who dare not sit there. Queen and L. talk apart, and she tells him of
Claudas's insult; he vows to avenge her, C. has taken Gannes, Benoyc
and _Aquitaine_. (=1533=, _Gaule and Benoyc_--[but Gaule was not yet
L.'s].) L. takes counsel with his friends and resolves on war. Brimol
van Pleiche comes, was conquered by B. at bridge of Corbenyc (not
recorded previously).

Line 31976. CLAUDAS prepares to resist A., gives all his nobles leave
to go, richly rewards those who remain; is promised help from Rome.

Line 32394. Recital of knights' adventures, recorded above.

Line 32755. War with Claudas told at great length. Valiant deeds of
Gawain, Hector, and Bohort. King and L. join army later. A.'s fight
with Frollo and winning of Gaul is placed here. Claudas finally
conquered, L. makes Hector king of Benoyc, Bohort of Gannes, Lionel of
Gaule (cf. _supra_, p. 201).

Line 35465. Feast at Camalot. Arrival of Elaine, L.'s madness. Cf.
chap. ix. pp. 161-163.

Line 35830. PERCEVAL. His arrival at court. Adventure with Patrides;
fight with Hector. Grail is vessel out of which Our Lord ate Paschal
lamb in house of Simon the Leper.

Line 36610. PERCEVAL and HECTOR come to house of a hermit who is priest
to the fisher-folk, who provide him with fish, etc. After riding some
time they come to house of a man, who had lodged L. six months before,
knows H. for his brother by likeness, L. was mad then.

(This is not in =1533=, which says, _Or dit le compte que grant piece
chevaucherent P. et H. ensemble per mainte terre estrange pour scavoir
se adventure les meneroit en lieu ou ilz peu(s)(s)ent trouver L. ains
chevaucherent maint yver et maint este ensemble._)

Line 36705. LANCELOT. Adventure at pavilion, imprisonment, and fight
with boar (cf. p. 163). Breaks off short here, as if MS. came to an end
and returns to

Line 36947. PERCEVAL returns to court. They do him great honour.

Damsel arrives (Grail messenger, but _Grail_ is not mentioned).
Castle Orguelous and Montesclaire ventures. (From this point source
is analogous to Chrétien.) Gawain will go to Montesclaire, Ywein to
Castle Orguelous, Kay and Griflet to 'Tere Dolorous' (not previously
mentioned), Perceval will ride through land, jousting with all whom
he may meet. Ginganbresil arrives, challenges Gawain. All ride forth,
Gawain, Agravain, Gariëtte, Ywein, Perceval, Griflet, Kay and Mordret
ride together for four miles, then separate.

Line 37105. GAWAIN adventure against Melias de Lis, and tournament as
in _Conte del Graal_.

Line 37584. KAY and AGRAVAIN go to seek Dolorous Castle. Meet maiden,
she will guide them thither if they dare to go there. Meet two knights
who will joust, K. and A. overthrow them, are attacked by eight and
finally taken prisoners, though A. defends himself stoutly. Will take
them to Castle D., before they have gone half a mile P. rides out of
side road. They attack him, but he puts them to flight, rescues K. and
A., the three take castle and sent lord prisoner to A.'s court.

Line 37855. YWEIN and GARIËTTE meet a dwarf, who leads them to the
Castle Orguelous. There they must joust against all comers. Ladies
watch from battlements, and as each knight is overthrown his lady sends
wreath of roses to victor. Thus they vanquish twenty. At last sixty
at once attack and overpower them, and they are led to castle, where
ladies insist on their being well treated.

Line 38000. MORDRET and GRIFLET are warned by hermit of danger they run
in going to Montesclaire. Ride on and are taken prisoners by tyrant who
will wed the lady of the castle.

Line 38133. PERCEVAL hears how Y. and G. have been vanquished at
Castle Orguelous. Rides thither with Kay and Agravain. P. overthrows
ten knights; K. and A. fifteen between them; when all attack them slay
twenty, wound fifteen, and take castle, setting Y. and G. and the
maidens free.

Line 38230. GAWAIN. Adventure with lady and chessmen in tower as in
_Conte del Graal_. G. is sent to find the bleeding 'white' spear. Comes
to hermitage, hermit tells him how Mordret and Griflet have been made
prisoners at Montesclaire, and are to be hanged in the morning. G. will
rescue them. Rises early, rides to hill where gallows already set up;
frees M. and G. Tyrant appears, fight fiercely, G.'s strength increases
at midday, overthrows tyrant, is fiercely attacked by his men.

Line 38990. PERCEVAL hears of M.'s danger; rides with Y., G., K., and
A. to aid. Comes up in time to help Gawain against four hundred men.
Slay tyrant and free maiden. Gawain wins sword 'metten vremden ringen,'
which will break if an unworthy knight handles it. Next morning
separate; G. goes to seek _Grail_ (which had not been mentioned
before), others return to court.

Line 39140. GAWAIN. Adventure with wounded knight and Château Merveil.
(Here we are told that _Merlin_ made the _Lit Merveil_. Here too G.
is warned he may not leave castle, but queen permits him to do so on
condition he returns in evening.)

Line 40060. Adventure with Guiromelant. Lady is Orgeloise. The queens
came into the land after the death of Uther Pendragon, and _King Lot_
(who in other romances is contemporary with Arthur), when there was
civil war in Logres. G. is girded for the fight by Tristram (who has
not previously appeared in the story). At prayer of Clareant a truce
is declared, and A. says Guir. shall wed his niece. Kay bears tidings
to G., who is so angry he vows he will not return to court. A. much
distressed. Twenty-four knights vow to seek G. for a year and a day.

Line 40785. QUESTERS come third day into wood. Voice from thicket bids
them stand; they may go no further unless they joust for it. Kay and
Dodinel overthrown. Knight asks Tristram's name; he will not tell it
unless knight tells his. He refuses; they fight fiercely till midday,
when they rest. Knight sees others coming and fears to be known; flies
into wood. Squire comes to seek T.; his wife is ill, must see him. T.,
K., and D. return. On way K. says he was overthrown unfairly. Knight
is in wood, overhears, comes out and challenges K. and D.; puts them
to the worse. T. and he fight again, lasts long, and T. is becoming
exhausted, when maiden appears seeking knight; it is Lancelot. They go
off together, and the three reach court safely.

Line 41013. PERCEVAL, who has separated from the others, comes to the
Castle of Orgeloise, who is besieged by old lover whom she left when
she rode off with Gawain. P. fights with and slays him. O. is hereafter
known as '_die goede joncfrouwe_.'

Line 41160. AGLOVAL (who is seeking P.) meets knight, who will not
reply to his greeting, but enters castle, arms himself, and attacks
A. It is Gregorias, who stole Gawain's horse. A. slays him. Comes to
castle, where old man receives him kindly. Greg. was his foe; his sons
are out seeking him. All rejoiced to hear of his death.

Line 41420. GAWAIN. Visit to Grail Castle as in Montpelier MS. of
_Conte del Graal_. Next day meets knight and maiden; former, hearing
G.'s name, challenges him--he has slain his father. They fight, and
desist, since it is no honour to fight with none to behold. Will fight
it out before court. He is Dyandras. G. goes to Scavaleon to report
ill-success of quest.

Line 41660. GARIËTTE and GRIFLET come to a tower where Hector is
imprisoned; find two knights ill-treating maiden for advising H.'s
release. Free her. H. appears to aid her (has escaped). Lord of castle
pursues them with twenty men. Perceval and Agloval arrive; slay eleven,
rest flee. All return to court.

Line 41845. GAWAIN goes to Scavaleon to fulfil compact with
Ginganbresil. Dyandras comes and claims his fight. King consults
counsellors; they judge that G. must fight _with both at once_. Squire
goes to warn King A., who comes with court to witness fight. After a
time would stop it, with king's consent, but Ginganbresil refuses.
Gawain's strength doubles, and he conquers both. King and one hundred
knights become A.'s men. Next day, rides homeward, stopping at castle
of Tibaut of Tintavel, where G. is warmly welcomed. Then all go to
Carlion.

Line 42540. Then follows _Morien_. Cf. _supra_, p. 150.



INDEX


  Abel, 180.

  Ade, 12, 13.

  Agloval, 36, 150, 162.

  Agravain, 137, 149, 152, 157, 160, 186, 194, 195, 199.

  Aguisel, 71.

  Alexander, 81.

  Arimathea (Joseph of), 121, 126, 127, 133, 134, 139, 209.

  Armorica, 56, 57.

  Arnoul, 181.

  Arnout, _v._ Arnoul.

  Arthur, 13, 15, 17, 21, 30, 32, 40, 41, 46, 47, 50, 51, 55, 56, 60,
  62, 63, 65, 67, 71, 94, 103, 106, 107, 110, 113, 126, 135, 141,
  154, 167, 184, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204.

  Astolat (_v._ Escarloet), 194.

  Avalon, 59, 60, 64, 65, 126, 153, 204, 205.


  Bagan, _v._ Vagan.

  Balaan and Balaain, 73, 167.

  Ban of Benoyc, 91, 92, 129, 143, 177, 185, 192, 200, 201, 210.

  Barenton, 72.

  Bath, 47, 48, 59, 60, 83.

  Baudemagus, 41, 101, 137, 143, 154, 158, 170, 184, 185, 203, 204.

  Beaurösch, 52.

  Bedivere, 4.

  Beforet, 12, 13, 14, 17.

  Bel Inconnu, 97, 98.

  Birch-Hirschfeld (Professor), 123.

  Bleeding Tomb, 139.

  Bohort, 21, 92, 121, 135, 136, 143, 144, 150, 153, 154, 156, 157, 160,
  161, 163, 166, 168, 170, 178, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205.

  Boiling Fountain, 139.

  Borron (Robert de), 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 133, 158, 163, 210.

  ---- pseudo _v._ above.

  Bors, _v._ Bohort.

  Briant des Illes, 129, 130.

  Brimol van Pleiche, 160, 186.

  Brisane, 142.

  Broceliande, 72, 82.

  Bromel le Plêche _v._ Brimol v. P.

  Brunel du Plessis _v._ Brimol v. P.

  Brut (_v._ also Layamon and Wace), 4, 6, 56, 71, 105, 106.

  Brynhild, 47.


  Cærnant, 82.

  Cahere, 198.

  Camalot, 83, 196, 197, 198.

  Caradigan, 82.

  Caradoc, 4, 91.

  Carduel, 82.

  Carlion, 83.

  Cath Palug, 60.

  Celidoine, 177.

  Champagne (Marie de), 42, 48, 114.

  Chapalu, _v._ Cath Palug.

  Charrette (Chevalier de la), 5, 6, 7, 11, 19, 20, 21, 27, 30, 49,
  50, 52, 53, 68, 81, 83, 101, 103, 112, 115, 116, 138, 143, 149, 185,
  188, 194, 206, 212.

  Charrette (summary of poem), chap. iv. 40-42.

  Chastel du Trespas, 153, 154.

  Château Merveil, 121.

  Chester, 82.

  Chevalier au Lion (_v._ also Yvain), 6, 42, 50, 100.

  Chevalier à la Manche, 18, 151.

  Chrétien de Troyes, 5, 6, 7, 10, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 42, 43,
  44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 95, 103, 115, 121, 131, 134, 140,
  143, 149, 191, 210, 211, 212.

  ---- position in Arthurian cycle, chap. v. pp. 54-88.

  Clarine, 11, 114.

  Claudas (King), 4, 102, 129, 182, 183.

  Claudins, 182, 183.

  Cligés, 5, 6, 42, 68, 79, 81, 83, 115.

  Conlaoch, 109.

  Corbenic, 121, 138, 139, 159, 160, 161, 167, 168, 181, 182, 183, 186.

  Cuchullain, 24, 58, 109.

  Cybele, _v._ Sibile.


  Diarmid, 109, 110.

  Dinasdron, 82.

  Dodine le Sauvage, 15.

  Dodinel, 150.

  Dover, 83.


  Elaine, 142, 160, 161.

  Elayne, _v._ above.

  Eleanor of Aquitaine, 48, 114.

  Elidiâ, 16.

  Eliezer, 139.

  Erec, 5, 15, 16, 64, 71, 79, 82, 115.

  ---- (poem), 5, 6, 11, 27, 42, 53, 64, 69, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 115, 130.

  Ernoulf, _v._ Arnoul.

  Escalot, _v._ Escarloet.

  Escarloet, 135, 187, 196, 197, 198.

  Esealt der lange, 16.


  Falerîn, _v._ Valerîn.

  False Claimant (story of), 34, 35.

  Fata Morgana, 19.

  Fier Baiser, 18, 19, 98, 99.

  Fisher King, 129, 138, 161, 168, 169, 192.

  Foerster (Professor), 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26, 44, 49, 50, 93, 188.

  ---- ---- theory of Arthurian evolution examined, chap v. pp. 54-88.

  Frazer (Professor J. G.), 72.

  Frollo, 4, 102, 126.

  Furnivall (Dr.), _v._ Queste.


  Gaheret, _v._ below.

  Gaheriet, 15, 143, 150, 154, 158, 159, 172, 195, 196, 198, 199.

  Galagandreiz, 12, 26.

  Galahad, 97, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 129, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138,
  142, 145, 146, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172,
  174, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 191, 208, 209, 210.

  Galehault, 136, 138, 147, 149, 153, 205.

  Galehodyn, 153.

  Galobrus de la Vermeille lande, 130.

  Gandîn, 51, 116.

  Garel, 53.

  Gareth, _v._ Gaheriet.

  Gariëtte, _v._ Gaheriet.

  Gawain, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 31, 32, 33,
  35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 51, 53, 57, 63, 67, 91, 93, 95, 99, 103, 108,
  109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 120, 121, 129, 136, 137, 139,
  143, 149, 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 166, 167, 169, 170, 173,
  178, 183, 184, 185, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 208.

  Genewîs, 11, 17.

  Geoffrey of Monmouth, 20, 55, 56, 102, 104.

  Gildas, 46.

  Ginganbrisil, 149, 150.

  Giraldus Cambrensis, 64.

  Girard de Viane, 71.

  Glastonbury, 46, 48, 59.

  Godefroy de Leigni, 42, 44.

  Goothe, _v._ Goth.

  Gorres, 43, 47.

  Got, 174.

  Goth, _v._ Got.

  Graal, Conte del, 121, 189, 212.

  Graalent, 64, 65, 77, 87.

  Grail (Holy), 78, 80, 90, 97, 100, 120, 123, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137,
  138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 161, 163, 168, 169, 173, 181, 191,
  192, 208, 209, 210, 212.

  Grail castle (_v._ also Corbenic), 121, 150, 183, 192.

  Grail Quest, _v._ Queste.

  Graislemier de Fine Posterne, 64, 65.

  Grand S. Graal, 101, 121, 126, 127, 133, 137, 138, 139, 175, 179, 192,
  209.

  Griflette, 150.

  Guendolen, 100.

  Guerresches, 159, 198, 199.

  Guinevere, 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 32, 38, 40, 41,
  43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 90, 96, 100, 103, 104, 106, 107,
  108, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 129, 135, 138, 141, 142, 158, 182, 188,
  197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 207.

  Guingamor, 64, 65, 77.

  Guinglain, 19.

  Gurnemanz, 13, 26, 28, 80.


  Hagen (Herr P.), theory of Grail origin, 29, 52, 78.

  Hartland (Mr. E. S.), 34, 62, 73, 84.

  Hartmann von Aue, 5, 16, 26, 27, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 75, 80, 116.

  Hector, 21, 136, 139, 143, 152, 153, 157, 161, 163, 178, 195, 198,
  200, 201.

  Heinzel (Professor), 129, 130, 213.

  Hélie le Blank, 157, 170.

  Henry II., 48.

  Hertz (Professor), 26, 95.


  Iblîs, 13, 14, 16, 17, 27.

  Ider, 4.

  Idylls of the King, 114.

  Iseult, 1, 5, 37, 38, 45, 113, 116, 117, 197.

  Isle of Women, 22.

  Iwân de Nonel, 27.

  Iwanet, 95.

  Iwein (_v._ also Yvain), 4, 49, 50, 52, 53, 95.

  ---- (_v._ Hartmann von Aue).

  Iweret, 12, 13, 27.


  Johfrit de Liez, 12, 26.


  Kailet, 27.

  Kamalot, _v._ Camalot.

  Karados, 203.

  Karnachkarnanz, 27.

  Kay, 4, 22, 30, 31, 40, 41, 44, 50, 51, 60, 151, 155, 156, 162, 200.

  Kei, _v._ Kay.

  Ker (Professor), 23, 24.

  Kiot, 28, 29.

  Krône (Diu), 15, 22, 58, 80, 121.


  Lady of the Lake, 23, 36, 94, 99, 138, 152, 207.

  Lady of the Fountain, 67.

  Lamorak, 162.

  Lancelot, not a character of early Arthurian tradition, chap. i. pp. 1-7.

  ---- origin of name, 8, 9, 10.

  ---- rescuer of Guinevere, 15, 16, 40, 43.

  ---- origin of legend, 21-25.

  ---- _et le cerf au pied blanc_, chap. iii., 30-39, 151, 206-207.

  ---- (prose), chaps, vi., vii., viii., 89-146.

  ---- (Dutch), 30, 31, 38, 130, 131.

  ---- comparison of text, chaps, ix., x., xi., 147-205.

  Lanval, 64, 65.

  Lanzelet, _v._ Zatzikhoven (Ulrich von).

  Laudine, 70, 74, 75.

  Laudunet, 10, 74, 75.

  Layamon, 4, 27, 56, 93, 104, 105, 106, 111.

  Limors, 12.

  Lionel, 21, 92, 135, 136, 143, 152, 153, 156, 161, 166, 170, 178,
  195, 200, 201.

  Lohengrin, 210.

  Lohot, 130.

  London, 83.

  Lot (M. Ferdinand), 59, 62, 64, 74.

  Lot (King), 13, 26, 93, 159.

  Loth (M.), 60.

  Louis VII., 48.

  Lucan, 204.


  Mabûz, 13, 14.

  Maelwas, 8, 10 (_v._ also Melwas).

  Maheloas, 64.

  Maimed King, 138, 161, 169, 192.

  Malduc, 15, 16, 80.

  Malduz, _v._ Malduc.

  Malehault (Dame de), 101, 129.

  Malmesbury (William of), 59.

  Malory, 23, 45, 46, 49, 90, 101, 104, 108, 114, 131, 151, 165.

  ---- comparison of text, chaps. ix., x., xi., pp. 107-205.

  Mantle (Lai), 14, 19.

  Map (Walter), 122, 125, 131, 163, 184, 210.

  ---- (pseudo), as above.

  Marie de France, 61, 65, 66.

  Mathoeus die felle, 154.

  Mauduiz li Sages (cf. Malduc).

  Maurîn, 27.

  Meide-lant, 11, 14, 22, 94.

  Meleagant, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 51, 52, 59, 60, 101, 118, 138, 143, 185.

  Melians de Lile, 171.

  Meliot de Logres, 158.

  Melwas, 8, 46, 47, 59, 60, 118.

  Méraugis de Portlesguez, 18, 73.

  Merlin, 23, 34, 60, 91, 92, 103, 107, 117, 122, 126, 127, 138, 142.

  ---- (prophecies of), 100.

  ---- (Suite de), 23, 73, 92, 122, 137, 184, 185, 204, 209.

  Modena (bas-relief at), 4, 56.

  Mordred, 20, 93, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 115, 118, 126,
  154, 156, 159, 162, 199, 202, 203.

  Morgain la fee, 64, 99, 153, 156, 160, 199, 204, 207.

  Morholt, 92.

  Morien, 35, 37, 150, 174, 181, 207.

  Mort Artur, 93, 104, 122, 126, 127, 135, 137, 138, 145, 148, 151,
  159, 184.

  Mort Artur, comparison of text, chaps, xi. 194-205.


  Nohan (Dame de), 97.

  Norgales, 153, 196.

  Nutt (Mr. Alfred, _Studies_), 120.


  Orguelleus de la Lande, 80.

  Orgeluse, 112, 149.

  Orgeloise, _v._ Orgeluse.

  Ossenefort, 79.

  Oxford, 83.


  Pallada, 178.

  Pant of Genewîs, 11, 91.

  Paris (M. Gaston), 8, 9, 16, 32, 35, 40, 44, 60, 110, 150, 151, 188.

  ---- (M. Paulin), 96, 101, 124, 127, 137, 149, 155, 190, 213.

  Parzival (Wolfram von Eschenbach's), 26, 27, 28, 31, 94, 95, 96, 112,
  118, 140, 181, 212, 213.

  Patrides, 162.

  Patryse, 195.

  Pelles, King, 112, 138, 139, 160, 167, 168, 169, 183.

  Perceval, 3, 5, 6, 24, 26, 33, 36, 42, 63, 69, 71, 78, 81, 83, 91,
  95, 96, 98, 115, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132,
  133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 142, 146, 149, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163,
  167, 168, 170, 173, 174, 175, 178, 179, 181, 191, 192, 207, 208, 209,
  210, 211, 212.

  ---- Didot, 93, 126, 128, 134, 140, 191, 192, 205, 212.

  ---- li Gallois, 107, 127, 129, 134, 140, 158, 181, 191, 212.

  Peredur, 8, 9, 10.

  Perilous Cemetery, 139, 158.

  Perlesvaus (_v._ P. li Gallois), 130.

  Perseus (Legend of), 34.

  Philip of Flanders (Count), 78.

  Plurîs, 14, 15.


  Queste, 34, 76, 101, 107, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130,
  131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 144, 145, 148, 150,
  153, 161, 208, 209, 210.

  Queste, comparison of text, chap. x. 165-193.

  ---- Welsh, 148.


  Raguidel (vengeance de), 150.

  Rajna (Professor), 6.

  Rochedon (Duc de), 101, 153.

  Rhys (Professor), 8, 10, 104, 108.

  Rigomer, 18.


  Scarloet, _v._ Escarloet.

  Schofield (Dr.), 87, 98, 99.

  Schrîenden Mose (den), 47.

  Segramore, 5.

  Shoreham, 83.

  Sibile (l'Enchanteresse), 153.

  Siegfried, 19, 24, 47.

  Sommer (Dr., _Sources of Malory_), 49, 90, 131, 151, 214.

  ---- Summary compared, chaps. ix., x., xi., pp. 147-205.

  Soredamors, 81.

  Sorelois, 153.

  Sorestan, 152, 153.

  Southampton, 83.


  Tanebor, 196, 197.

  Tarquijn, _v._ Terriquen.

  Terriquen, 152, 187, 200, 203.

  Torec, 18, 151.

  Tristan, 1, 3, 5, 6, 15, 16, 35, 37, 38, 51, 91, 92, 100, 103, 107,
  109, 110, 111, 113, 116, 117, 125, 128, 137, 159, 162, 191, 197, 207.

  Turquin, _v._ Terriquen.

  Tyolet, 32, 33, 35, 63.


  Urre of Hungary, 187, 194.

  Uther Pendragon, 142.

  Uwayne, 172.


  Vagan, 170.

  Valerîn, 14, 15, 47, 48.

  Villemarqué (M. de la), 8, 10, 101.

  Vivienne, 99.


  Wace, 20, 56, 72, 93, 104, 106.

  Wallingford, 83.

  Walter of Oxford, 105.

  Wechssler (Dr.), 78, 101, 117, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128, 132,
  134, 137, 150, 159, 187, 191.

  Widow of Ephesus, 69, 70, 76, 77.

  Winchester, 83, 195, 196.

  Windsor, 83.

  Wolff (lais), 77.

  Wolfram von Eschenbach, 52, 53, 94, 95, 121, 130, 134, 141, 149,
  150, 191.

  ---- _v._ also Parzival.


  Yonet, 95.

  Yvain, 45, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 85,
  94, 95, 96, 129, 153, 154, 155, 156, 202.

  ---- _v._ also Iwein and Chevalier au Lion.


  Zatzikhoven (Ulrich von), 11, 17, 20, 29, 44, 46, 66, 80.

  ---- Lanzelet of U. _v._ chap. ii., 47, 66, 80, 91, 93, 94, 98, 99,
  102, 206.

  Zimmer (Professor), 9.


  Appendix, pp. 215-247, not included in above INDEX.


 Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, (late) Printers to Her Majesty at the
 Edinburgh University Press

 FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Brut_, ed. Leroux de Lincy, vol. ii. ll. 10158-10360. These
remarks also apply to Layamon.

[2] Described and illustrated by Zimmerman in _Oberitalische Plastik
im frühen und hohen Mittelalter_: Leipzig, 1897. Cf. also _Romania_,
xxvii. p. 510.

[3] It is difficult to resist the conclusion that if the Welsh stories
were as late in date and as dependent upon French tradition as some
scholars maintain, Lancelot would certainly be mentioned in them.

[4] Cf. _Erec_, Foerster's ed., l. 1694; Hartmann's _Erec_, l. 1630.

[5] _Cligés_, Foerster's ed., ll. 4765-4798.

[6] The advocates of Chrétien as an independent and original genius
would do well carefully to consider the meaning of such curious
inconsistency. If Chrétien were dealing with matter either of his own
invention, or of his own free adaptation, he would surely have been
more careful of the unities. If, on the other hand, he simply retold
tales belonging to different stages of Arthurian tradition, this is
exactly what we might expect to find.

[7] In the opening lines of _Cligés_, Chrétien gives a list of his
works. This includes a version of the story of _Tristan_, and several
translations from Ovid. _Tristan_ probably preceded _Erec_, but there
is nothing to indicate the relative order of the other works.

[8] Signor Rajna has found the names of Arthur and Gawain in Italian
deeds of the first quarter of the twelfth century, and from the nature
of some of these deeds it is clear that the persons named therein
cannot have been born later than 1080.

[9] _Charrette_, ll. 2347-2362.

[10] _Romania_, vol. x. p. 492.

[11] _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_, chap. vi.

[12] The only adventure of the kind I can recall is that of the fiery
lance of the _Charrette_ and prose _Lancelot_, an adventure which is
the common property of several knights, and by no means confined to
Lancelot.

[13] _Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Litteratur_, vol. xii.
Heft I.

[14] _Der Karrenritter_, herausgegeben von Wendelin Foerster: Halle,
1899.

[15] Cf. _Anturs of Arthur_, where the ghost foretells to Gawain the
treason of Mordred, the destruction of the Round Table, and his own
death. Lancelot is not mentioned. Nor does he appear in _Syr Gawayne
and the Grene Knyghte_ or in _The Avowynge of Arthur_. In some of the
other poems, _Galogres and Gawayne_, _The Carle of Carlile_, _The
Marriage of Sir Gawain_, and _Sir Libeaus Desconus_ he is mentioned,
but plays no important part. The ballad of _Sir Lancelot du Lake_ in
the Percy Collection is a version of an adventure related in the Prose
_Lancelot_.

[16] Cf. _Karrenritter_, Introduction, p. xxxix.

[17] The materials for this study had been collected, and my conclusion
as to the origin of the Lancelot story arrived at, before the
publication of Professor Foerster's book. I am glad to find myself
supported in any point by such an authority, but think it well to avoid
misconception by stating that my results have been arrived at through
independent study.

[18] _Lanzelet_ von Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, ed. Hahn: Frankfurt, 1845.
Out of print and difficult to procure.

[19] This account, and the mention of England, l. 7054, seem to render
it possible that the original poem may have been written in this island.

[20] This is entirely in accordance with Tristan's character as
represented in the poems. He is in the highest degree _rusé_ and
resourceful.

[21] Is it not possible that this _Malduz_ the magician may be the
original of _Mauduiz li Sages_ whom Chrétien ranks as eighth of
Arthur's knights? Cf. _Erec_, 1699. Hartmann's version gives Malduiz;
_Diu Krône_, 1379, Malduz der Weise. The identification seems clear.

[22] I am quite at a loss to account for the mistake into which such
authorities as M. Gaston Paris and Professor Foerster have apparently
fallen. In M. Paris's study the idea that Lanzelet is the rescuer is
perhaps rather implied than stated, but when I wrote the _Charrette_
chapter (viii.) in my _Studies on the Legend of Sir Gawain_, in
which I followed the article in _Romania_, I was certainly under the
impression that the latter was the case. In the introduction to the
_Karrenritter_, p. xliv., Professor Foerster distinctly says that
Lanzelet frees the queen. I have read and re-read the text carefully
and made my final summary direct from it, and there is no doubt that
Lanzelet has nothing to do with the matter. The passage in question
is contained in ll. 6975-7445. How too did Professor Foerster come to
ignore the real character of Guinevere's imprisonment? Cf. _Charrette_,
lxxi.

[23] _Karrenritter_, Introduction, p. xliv.

[24] I think it is worthy of note that though Lanzelet is the hero of
the tale here and not Guinglain, Gawain's son, as elsewhere, yet in
this poem Lanzelet is Arthur's nephew, and of Gawain's kin, which he is
not in any other version. The _Fier Baiser_ is thus still restricted to
the family of Gawain.

[25] Cf. my _Legends of the Wagner Drama_, _Siegfried_.

[26] I say especially 'as told by Geoffrey and Wace,' for these writers
give us clearly to understand that the queen was a consenting party,
and no victim to Mordred's treachery. It is quite a different version
from that of the prose _Lancelot_.

[27] I shall have occasion to refer very frequently to Professor
Foerster's introduction. It is a full and powerful statement of views
which so far as they affect the origin and evolution of the Arthurian
legend I believe to be radically unsound. It is most useful to have at
hand a summary so clear and concise.

[28] _Merlin_, G. Paris and Ulrich's ed., vol. ii. pp. 136-137.

[29] In the prose _Lancelot_ the hero is always addressed as 'king's
son.' Cf. in this connection Professor Ker's review of my _Legend of
Sir Gawain_, Folk-lore, vol. ix. p. 266. I incline to think that the
question of a hero's possessing from the first a name and a well-marked
story depends upon whether he has or has not an existence in _myth_.
If of mythical origin he probably would have both, if an actor in
folk-tale very likely neither; thus while I should reject Professor
Ker's correction as regards _Gawain_, I would certainly hold it true
of _Lancelot_. In the case of this latter hero, I think his name may
well have been determined by his title du Lac. The tendency of early
verse is towards alliteration, probably mere chance determined the
_Lancelot_, the one essential was that it should begin with an _L_. It
should, I think, also be noted that while in the _Lanzelet_ the hero's
ignorance of his name and birth are genuine, in the prose _Lancelot_ he
knows who he is, and the wrong done to his father and uncle by Claudas.
The pseudonyms '_Filz du Roi_,' '_Beau Varlet_' are here unnecessary; a
meaningless survival from the original tale.

[30] This feature is, I think, peculiar to Wolfram; Chrétien does not
mention it.

[31] Professor Hertz, in his edition of the _Parzival_, p. 440, records
these points of contact, but does not discuss the question of the
relation of the two poems. Professor Foerster in his introduction
simply notes that the instruction by Johfrit de Liez recalls the
_Perceval_ story.

[32] Layamon '_Brut_' knows Maurin of Winchester as a kinsman of
Arthur's, ll. 20238 and 24336. I have not found the name elsewhere.

[33] It appears to me that, in view of Herr P. Hagen's excellent
demonstration of the correctness of the many curious Oriental
references with which the _Parzival_ abounds, and his remarkable
identification of Wolfram's Grail with a sacred _Bætylus_ stone, it is
impossible any longer to deny the possession, by Wolfram, of a source
other than Chrétien's poem. But whether the _Lanzelet_ offers another
proof or not I should hesitate to say. If it does, the evidence,
extending as it does over so much of the _Parzival_, is of the greatest
value as an indication of the extent of Kiot's work.

[34] _Lancelot_, ed. Jonckbloet, vol. ii. ll. 22271-23126. The
summaries in this chapter, and all subsequent references to the Dutch
_Lancelot_, are taken direct from the text. A summary of the romance
here discussed is given by M. Gaston Paris, _Histoire Littéraire de la
France_, vol. xxx. p. 113.

[35] Throughout the Dutch _Lancelot_ we have constant references to
Gawain's skill in healing. Cf. _Parzival_, x. 104. Chrétien does not
appear to know this trait in Gawain's character.

[36] The _lai_ of _Tyolet_ was published by M. Gaston Paris in vol.
viii. of _Romania_, '_Lais Inédits_.' I have given a prose translation
in vol. iii. of _Arthurian Romances unrepresented in Malory_.

[37] Cf. _Merlin_, Sommer's ed. chap. xxiv. p. 302.

[38] _Tristan_, vol. i. Book XIII., ed. Bechstein, _Deutsche classiker
des Mittelalters_; also my translation of same, _Arthurian Romances_,
No. ii. vol. i.

[39] Dutch _Lancelot_, vol. i. l. 42,540 to end. The portion dealing
with the adventure begins l. 43,593; the adventure itself, l. 46,514;
also summarised in _Hist. Litt._ vol. xxx.

[40] The poem itself has been discussed by M. Gaston Paris in
_Romania_, vol. xii., and by Professor Foerster in the introduction
to his edition. The question of Guinevere's rescuer has been treated
by Professor Rhys in his _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_, and in
M. Gaston Paris's article just referred to, and that on Ulrich von
Zatzikhoven's _Lanzelet_ in _Romania_, vol. x. I have also devoted a
chapter in my _Legend of Sir Gawain_ to the subject.

[41] The concluding portion of the poem is by Godefroy de Leigni,
who, however, worked with Chrétien's knowledge and approval, so that
practically the work may be held to be Chrétien's throughout.

[42] Livre, _Cligés_ and _Perceval_; conte, _Erec_ and _Chevalier au
Lion_. The concluding lines of the latter, 'qu'onques plus conter n'an
oï,' clearly indicate this. I shall return to this subject in the next
chapter.

[43] The manifold discrepancies of Chrétien's version were long ago
remarked upon by M. Gaston Paris, and even Professor Foerster, with all
his enthusiasm for the poet, is constrained to admit their existence,
but he considers some of the puzzles were of Chrétien's own making, and
he intended later to clear them up. Why then did he not explain them to
Godefroy de Leigni, who finished the poem with Chrétien's approval?

[44] I do not here include either the mediæval Welsh fragments or
Malory's account. The meaning of the former cannot be accurately
ascertained, and the latter practically represents the same version as
that of the _Charrette_ poem, though the question of _source_ cannot,
as I shall prove later on, be held to be definitely settled.

[45] Cf. Simrock, _Handbuch der deutschen Mythologie_, _Dornröschen_.
Some of the details of Arthur's journey to Valerîn's stronghold are
worth the attention of folk-lore experts, _e.g._ the curious account of
the _Schrîenden Mose_, that at certain times utters loud cries, _drî
tage vor sunegihten sô schrît daz mos und selten mêr_, and the curious
fish in its stream, which are '_ebenlanc und ebenkurz_,' and of which
'_die Engellende_' have many. Cf. _Lanzelet_, ll. 7040 _et seq._

[46] On these varying forms of the '_other-world_' dwelling, cf.
_Rassmann Heldensage_, vol. i. p. 152.

[47] _Legend of Sir Gawain_, chap. viii.

[48] As a rule, whenever in the _Iwein_ Hartmann does depart from his
source, it is with the effect of making the story more coherent and
probable. I have noted several instances of this in my study on the
_Yvain_ poems, _Modern Quarterly for Language and Literature_, July and
November, 1898.

[49] Cf. _Parzival_, Book VII. 1472.

[50] Cf. _Parzival_, Book VII., as above; also 590 _et seq._ and 1355
_et seq._

[51] Cf. _Der Gral_, P. Hagen: Strassburg, 1900. I am unable to accept
the author's contention that the _Bætylus_-Grail represents the
original form of the talisman; but he certainly proves the correctness
of the many curious references to Oriental literature which are
peculiar to Wolfram's version of the story, and cannot possibly have
been within that writer's own knowledge.

[52] In this connection, cf. Dr. Brown's study on _The Round Table
before Wace_, vol. vii. of _Harvard Studies_: Boston, 1900; and the
incidental demonstration that Layamon had access to Welsh traditions
unknown to Wace.

[53] For the first, cf. _Legend of Sir Gawain_, chap. ix., where I have
discussed the variants of the poem. For _The Marriage of Sir Gawain_,
cf. Mr. Maynadier's exhaustive study of _The Wife of Bath's Tale_,
vol. xiii. of the present series. In the case of the _Green Knight_
there are certain peculiarities of names which point to an intermediate
French stage, which, in this instance at least, cannot well have been
other than an Anglo-Norman poem.

[54] The French variant which seems to have most affinity with the tale
referred to is that of the Didot _Perceval_, printed by M. Hucher in
vol. i. of his _Saint Graal_, p. 453.

[55] Introduction, _Charrette_, p. cxxvii.

[56] Cf. 'Nouvelles Etudes sur la provenance du cycle Arthurien,'
_Romania_, vols. xxvii. and xxviii.

[57] Cf. _Artus Kampf mit dem Katzenungetum_, E. Freymond, Halle: 1899.

[58] _Romania_, vol. xxix. p. 121 _et seq._

[59] The evidence of the _lais_, and the fact that Marie de France
was Chrétien's contemporary, forbids us to postulate an entirely oral
transmission.

[60] Of this the '_runs_' of Celtic and Gaelic story-tellers form a
good example. Cf. Hyde's _Beside the Fire_, p. xxv.

[61] Mr. E. S. Hartland, to whom I submitted the question.

[62] Cf. M. Ferd. Lot 'La patrie des lais Bretons,' _Romania_, vol.
xxviii.

[63] Chap. iii.

[64] 'Morgue la Fée et Morgan Tud,' _Romania_, vol. xxviii. p. 327.

[65] Professor Foerster's references to this character (_Charrette_,
lxxiii.) are perplexing. He prints Chrétien's description of the
'Ile' side by side with a parallel passage from Giraldus Cambrensis,
_Topographia Hiberniæ_, informing us that both are 'ganz einfach eine
naturgetreue Beschreibung von Irland.' He cannot mean us to understand
that the one description is borrowed from the other; the work of
Giraldus is at least thirty years later than the _Erec_ (_circa_
1186), and that chronicler would hardly go to a romancer like Chrétien
for the description of a country he knew personally. But _is_ it a
'_Naturgetreue_' description of Ireland at all? Professor Foerster is
compelled himself to admit naïvely, '_Gewitter und Stürme fehlen nicht
ganz_!' Is this not rather a description of the fabled Irish Paradise
which Chrétien and Giraldus alike have borrowed from a source common to
both?

[66] Of course I here use the word _Breton_ in a general sense as
opposed to _French_. I do not intend to imply that Arthur is of
_Continental_ origin.

[67] _Ueber die Bedeutung von Bretagne, Breton_, Zeitschrift für
französische Sprache, xx. 79-162.

[68] Cf. chap. ii.

[69] Cf. _Charrette_, lxxxi. and cxli.

[70] Cf. on this point Professor Foerster's Introductions to his
editions of the _Yvain_, 1887 (large ed.), 1891 (small ed.).

[71] Cf. Grisebach, _Die Treulose Witwe_: Wien, 1873.

[72] Cf. review of _The Legend of Sir Gawain_. Zeitschrift für
französische Sprache, No. 20, p. 95.

[73] Cf. Gautier, _Epopées Françaises_, vol. ii. p. 89 ff.; also
Helisant, in _Garin le Loherain_.

[74] Cf. _Brut_, ed. Leroux de Lincy, vol. ii. ll. 13597-99.

[75] Cf. _The Golden Bough_, J. G. Frazer.

[76] Cf. _Merlin_, ed. Paris and Ulrich, vol. ii. pp. 44-56; _Meraugis
de Portlesguez_, ll. 2915 _et seq._

[77] _Vide supra_, _Legend of Sir Gawain_, Zeitschrift für franz. Spr.

[78] M. Ferd. Lot, to whom I am indebted for the verification of this
passage, writes: 'Le () répresente un léger blanc occasionné par un
défaut du parchemin, en sorte qu'on pourrait lire en deux mots _Lan
donez_ (d'où _l'ont donez_); on peut lire La_n_-donez aussi bien que
La_u_donez.'

[79] Cf. Introduction to _Yvain_, large edition, where it is referred
to as G.

[80] Cf. chap. x. p. 182, where the passage referred to is given in
full.

[81] To say, as Professor Foerster does, that the spring=grave is to
misrepresent the incidents; the castle in which the lady dwells is some
distance from the spring, as we see in Yvain's chase of his flying foe.

[82] I do not know that it is has any real bearing on the question,
but the passage from _Flamenca_ quoted by Wolff (_Lais_), p. 51, is
curious: '_L'uns viola lais del cabrefoil, E' l'autre cel de Tintagoil;
l'uns cantet cels des fis amanz, E l'autre cel que fes Ivans._'

[83] P. cxli. _et seq._

[84] It should be noted that Professor Foerster offers no arguments; he
only makes assertions. There may, or there may not, have been a Grail
romance which knew nothing of Perceval, certainly we have no traces
of such, but how _can_ we tell what would be the character of such
a story? There are any amount of theories on the subject. Wechssler
has his, Hagen his, diametrically opposed to each other. Theories
unsupported by proof are useless as argument. Professor Foerster is
very fond of telling us this; but the moment we get on to the question
of Chrétien de Troyes and his sources, _adieu_ proof. We are wrapped in
the mists of subjectivity.

[85] The italics are mine.

[86] Cf. _Erec_, l. 1526; list of knights, l. 1691 _et seq._

[87] Cf. _Erec_, l. 1699; Hartmann, _Erec_, l. 1635; _Diu Krône_, l.
1379 (Adventure of the Cup); _Lanzelet_, ll. 7353-64.

[88] If Malduz, or Malduc, were a well-known enchanter, and connected
with the Arthurian story, as he appears to have been, how did he vanish
from it? Was it the greater popularity of _Merlin_ which displaced him?
What is the origin of his name? It sounds as if it might be Celtic, or
can he be in any way connected with Maugis, the resourceful cousin of
'_Les quatre fils Aginon_'?

[89] So far as the _Perceval_ story is concerned, there is certainly
evidence of varying forms, _e.g._, Whence did the continuators of
Chrétien, notably Gerbert, draw their versions? And what of the
_Perceval_ embodied in the Dutch _Lancelot_, which appears to be
independent, so far as the working out of the adventures suggested by
the Grail messenger are concerned, of any known version?

[90] Professor Foerster's attempt to base an argument on the source
of _Cligés_ cannot for a moment be accepted, cf. Introduction,
_Charrette_, cxxxviii. We only know that the source was a book; but
what that book contained, no one can say. We can never argue from the
_un_known to the known. We do not know much of Chrétien's sources for
the other poems, but the grounds for an investigation _do_ exist in
the above instances, they do _not_ in _Cligés_. We must find out how
Chrétien dealt with _Erec_, _Yvain_, and _Perceval_ before we are in
a position to offer the slightest hypothesis as to his treatment of
_Cligés_. The fact that Mark of Rome gives a short summary of the story
is interesting, but so brief a _résumé_ is of little critical value. It
is certainly not a _book_, therefore cannot possibly be identical with
Chrétien's source.

[91] On this subject, cf. any scientific collection of folk-tales,
_e.g._, _The Science of Fairy Tales_, by Mr. E. S. Hartland, or in the
same author's _Legend of Perseus_, the tabulated variants of the Dragon
story in vol. iii. These would help the reader to realise the number
of _motifs_ often combined in a single story. The _lais_ of _Lanval_,
_Graalent_, and _Guingamor_, comparatively short though they be, yet
combine at least three distinct story-_motifs_, _i.e._ what we may call
the Joseph and Potiphar's wife, Tannhäuser, and Lohengrin themes. Any
one of these _lais_ would be capable of considerable expansion.

[92] I have studied the _Yvain_ versions carefully, and have read
those of _Erec_, but not compared them critically; but I should not
be surprised if it were ultimately found that in _The Lady of the
Fountain_ we have the story at a stage anterior to Chrétien, and
probably that at which it came into his hands, _redacted by the Welsh
scribe under the influence of Chrétien's poem_; while in _Geraint_
we have the process reversed, _i.e._ a rendering of _Chrétien's poem
modified by the earlier version_. In the statement, '_Gwiffert Petit
he is called by the Franks, but the Cymry call him the Little King_,'
we have, I think, a hint of this. The writer must have been too good
a French scholar to think the one term a translation of the other; it
rather implies that the Welsh knew the character only by a sobriquet
borrowed from his diminutive size, which is exactly what we should
expect, the earlier stages of story-telling being anonymous. So far as
the correspondence in word and dialogue is concerned, the conclusion
to be drawn depends entirely on the nature of the parallel passages;
if they be merely such ordinary dialogue (question and response) as
would naturally spring from the incidents of the story, both may well
be reminiscences of the oral version. Analytic, self-communing passages
would, of course, point to a later stage in evolution; but the Welsh
version dialogue is of the simplest description.

[93] Professor Foerster recognises this argument in a measure, but does
not appear to realise its full bearing.

[94] I should myself be inclined to limit Chrétien's share in the work
to the rearrangement of existing combinations. I do not think he ever
made any new combination, unless it were in the case of _Cligés_, and
that is only a 'perhaps.'

[95] Cf. _Lays of Graalent and Lanval_, p. 175.

[96] The printed editions of the prose _Lancelot_ chronicled by Dr.
Sommer, _Sources of Malory_, p. 8, note, are 1494, Ant. Verard; 1513,
Philippe Lenoire; 1533, Jehan Petit. There was also an edition 1533,
_Philippe Lenoire_, which represents a very important text, and one
which Dr. Sommer does not appear to know. A copy is in the Bodleian
(Douce collection).

[97] It is difficult to know exactly what value to place on the
traditional relationship of uncle and nephew as postulated of Arthur
and Lancelot in the poem of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven. This is so
completely a _lieu commun_ of heroic romance. Except in the case of a
hero of distinctly mythical origin such as Gawain, I am inclined to
consider it as marking a secondary stage in the evolution of a hero,
he would have attained to a certain degree of popularity before it
was postulated of him--thus Perceval and Caradoc are each, in turn,
Arthur's nephews. In the case of Lancelot it probably represented an
intermediate stage between entire independence of Arthur (the original)
and son of a faithful ally (the final) form.

[98] _Merlin_, Sommer's ed., chap. xxxiii. The _Lancelot_ legend
appears to me to offer a very interesting parallel to the methods
employed by the compilers of the _Chansons de Geste_, which are so
ably pointed out by M. Leon Gautier in his _Epopées Françaises_. The
original story of the hero forms a nucleus from which other romances
depart in a downward direction--dealing with sons and, perhaps,
grandsons;--in an upward, dealing with father and grandfather--till
a complete cycle is thus formed. We have exactly this process in
_Lancelot_--the _Queste_ extols the deeds of his son, the _Merlin_
those of his father; and we have indications that the story was well
on the way to the evolution of a secondary branch, that of Bohort and
his son. None of the other Arthurian heroes has undergone a parallel
development.

[99] Cf. _Merlin_, ed. Paris and Ulrich, vol. ii. pp. 137, 143.

[100] _Ibid._ pp. 231 _et seq._

[101] Cf. _Merlin_, ed. Sommer, chap. xxvii. It may be as well here
to remark that Professor Foerster apparently attributes considerable
importance to the pseudo-historical account of Arthur's wars with the
Saxons contained in the prose romances, notably the Vulgate _Merlin_
(cf. _Charrette_, p. xcvi., and review of _Legend of Sir Gawain_,
Zeitschrift für Franz. Sp., Band 20, p. 102), asserting that the prose
romances contain, side by side with the later, the remains of the
oldest stages of Arthurian tradition. To me it seems patent that these
romances have simply borrowed from the _Chronicles_. There is nothing
in them which cannot be found in Geoffrey or his translators, and the
fact that they represent the _romantic_ legend in a demonstrably late
form, and not in one consonant with the pseudo-historic indications,
while there is no trace of any fundamental revision of the story,
such as might be expected, seems to make it quite clear that they
are of comparatively late invention. They by no means stand on the
same footing as do Wace and Layamon, which are of distinct value in
determining earlier forms of the legend. To take one instance alone,
the _Merlin_ gives a long account of the sons of King Lot, who play a
most important part in the action of the story, but the genuine early
tradition gives Gawain no brother save Mordred, and Layamon distinctly
says, 'he wes Walwainnes broðer, næs þer nan oðer' (ll. 25467-8). The
existence of these sons marks a secondary stage in the story; but they
are in all the _prose_ romances. An exception should perhaps be made in
favour of the Didot _Perceval_, which gives the _Mort Artur_ section in
a form differing from the other prose romances and much more closely in
accord with the _Chronicles_. I shall return to this point later on.

[102] The two accounts should be carefully compared.

[103] Cf. _Parzival_, Book III. l. 937 _et seq._ I unfortunately
omitted to note the reference in the prose _Lancelot_. The passage is
on p. 127, vol. iii. of M. Paulin Paris's abridged edition.

[104] Cf. _Parzival_, Hertz, n. 66, p. 495.

[105] Cf. _Lais inédits_, M. Gaston Paris, _Romania_, vol. viii.

[106] Lancelot's eagerness to receive knighthood should be compared
with that of Parzival. Thus Lancelot says to Yvain, 'Dictes a
monseigneur le roy qu'il me face chevalier comme il a promis--car ie
le veuil estres sans attendre plus,'--and again, 'ie ne seray plus
escuyer.' prose _Lancelot_, ed. 1533, vol. i. Cf. this with _Parzival_,
Book III. ll. 1001-2, 'nune sûmet mich nicht mêre phleg mîn nâch riters
êre,' and 1158-9, 'i'ne wil niht langer sîn ein kneht, ich sol schildes
ambet hân.' The correspondence is striking.

[107] 'En verité ce varlet n'est mye bien sage, ou il a este mal
enseigné.' Yvain suggests that a woman has forbidden him to tell his
name (which might be compared with _Parzival_, Book III. l. 1464). By
his speech he must be _de Gaulle_. Ed. 1533, vol. i. (The 1533 edition
has in each volume a summary of chapter contents, thus reference is
easy.)

[108] MS. 751, fol. 144 vo., quoted by M. Paulin Paris in vol. iv. of
_Romans de la Table Ronde_, p. 87.

[109] This _Dame de Nohan_ is probably the same as the _Dame de Noauz_
mentioned in the _Charrette_, l. 5389.

[110] Cf. _Romania_, vol. xxvi. p. 290.

[111] _Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 65.

[112] M. Marillier in a review of the _Voyage of Bran_ and _Legend of
Sir Gawain_, contained in _Revue des Religions_ (July-August 1899),
is inclined to connect the adventure of the _Fier Baiser_ ascribed to
the son with the adventure of the _Marriage of Sir Gawain_ ascribed to
the father. Both are disenchantment stories, and both appear to belong
to the class of disenchantment by personal contact. The point is an
interesting and a suggestive one.

[113] The character of the fairy and the nature of Lancelot's
upbringing demand a special study, for which, so far, the materials are
not available. The Lady of the Lake touches on the one hand the Queen
of the Other-World, on the other, Morgain la Fee. I understand that a
study on the characters of Lady of the Lake, Vivienne, and Morgain, is
being prepared under the direction of Dr. Schofield. For the details
of Lancelot's childhood, we must wait till a critical edition of the
prose _Lancelot_ shows us whether we have any variants or traces of
early redactions, to bridge the gulf between the poem of Ulrich van
Zatzikhoven and the final prose romance.

[114] Cf. Introduction to M. Paulin Paris's _Romans de la Table Ronde_,
p. 81 _et seq._, also M. de Villemarqué's _Merlin_, p. 121.

[115] Dr. Wechssler's interesting study on '_die verschiedenen
Redaktionen des Graal-Lancelot Cyklus_' will be referred to later on.
It is an excellent statement of certain aspects of the problem, but
further research shows some of his conclusions to be very doubtful. His
judgment with regard to the _Queste_ variants is certainly at fault.

[116] l. 8050 _et seq._

[117] Cf. Rhys, _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_, chap. iii. The
author remarks that to this day in some parts of Wales it is held an
insult, as implying a reflection on her moral character, to call a girl
Guinevere.

[118] 'Arthur gave in charge all that he had to Mordred and the queen.
That was evil done that they were born, for the land they destroyed
with sorrows enow. And at the end themselves the Worse (devil) began to
destroy that they there forfeited (lost) their lives and their souls,
and ever since are loathed in every land, that never a man will offer
prayer for their souls.'

[119] This line is lacking in the oldest MS., but can be supplied from
the later recension: 'Man knew not, in sooth, whether she were dead
(and how she hence departed), whether she herself were sunk in the
water.'

[120] The _Merlin_ of course deals with a period anterior to this
_liaison_, but as we possess it, it has been, as we saw above, redacted
under the influence of a tradition of which the amours of Lancelot and
Guinevere formed an integral part.

[121] Cf. _Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 76 _et seq._

[122] On this point, cf. my _Legend of Sir Gawain_, Mr. Maynadier's
_Wife of Bath's Tale_ (both in Grimm Library), and M. Marillier's
article in _Revue des religions_ (July-August, 1899), already referred
to.

[123] I have purposely omitted Tristan, as, though a Celtic hero, he is
only indirectly connected with Irish tradition.

[124] I am glad to find that M. Gaston Paris evidently holds this
view, as in a note to his discussion of the tradition that Roland was
Charlemagne's son as well as his nephew, in the _Histoire Poétique de
Charlemagne_, he refers to Gawain as holding the same position.

[125] The above remarks of course refer to Gawain as connected with
Arthur; originally he was probably independent. As our knowledge stands
at present, the parallels between Gawain and early Irish tradition
appear to belong mainly to the _Ultonian_ cycle; while in the case of
Arthur the parallels are rather to the _Ossianic_.

[126] In some versions eighty.

[127] As far as English opinion goes, the popularity of Tennyson's
version of the Arthurian tales has operated disastrously in confusing
the question. Not long ago a writer contributed to a review an article
on the subject, in which he contended for the essential identity of
the _Tristan_ and _Lancelot_ stories, naming among other parallels
the fact that in both cases the hero is sent to fetch home his lord's
bride--an addition due to Tennyson; Lancelot in the genuine story
being unborn at the date of the marriage. As regards the _Idylls_, it
can only be said that whereas Malory's juxtaposition of half a dozen
different compilations made confusion of a subject already more than
sufficiently complex, Tennyson's edifying rearrangement of Malory
made that confusion 'worse confounded.' Malory is highly valuable for
the Arthurian legend in his proper place, when critically compared
with other versions; and has a separate and independent position as
an English classic. The _Idylls of the King_ may perhaps also be
considered an English classic, but is _entirely_ outside the range
of critical Arthurian scholarship, and should _never_ be quoted as
evidence for the smallest tittle of Arthurian romance.

[128] I am not quite certain on this point. Certainly the _Perceval_
story is earlier than we commonly suppose, and I think we may find that
it had reached the ecclesiastical ascetic stage at quite an early point
in the evolution of the _Lancelot_ story.

[129] Cf. Wechssler, _Über die verschiedenen Redaktionen des
Graal-Lancelot-Cyklus_, p. 17.

[130] _Merlin_, Sommer's ed., chap. xxvi. p. 343; _Perceval_, l. 9546
_et seq._; _Parzival_, xii. ll. 1306-7, xiii. l. 542 _et seq._; also my
_Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 75 _et seq._

[131] I have purposely excluded the Melwas-Meleagant story from this
comparison. I am not clear that it was, in its origin, a tale of
conjugal infidelity; it rather appears to me to be a _Pluto-Proserpine_
abduction tale. The abductor _may_ at one period have been Guinevere's
lover; but, as we now have it, the queen is the innocent victim of
violence. Further, it is evident that the abductor had ceased to be
the lover _before_ the introduction of Lancelot into the story (cf.
_Lanzelet_). Therefore, if originally an infidelity story, we are met
by the same perplexing gap in the tradition as we find in the Mordred
version.

[132] Cf. references under heading 'Gawain.' They are scattered
throughout the book.

[133] Cf. _Grand S. Graal_, ed. Hucher, pp. 271 and 289-93.

[134] Dr. Wechssler's caution is quite right, nevertheless I think we
may eventually find that Borron was really the author of some sort of a
cycle.

[135] Dr. Wechssler contends for this, as the correct title, rather
than _Grand S. Graal_.

[136] Cf. _supra_, p. 17.

[137] Cf. _supra_, p. 14.

[138] Cf. _supra_, p. 9.

[139] _Die Sage vom Heiligen Gral, in ihrer Entwicklung bis auf Richard
Wagner's Parsifal_: Halle, 1898.

[140] Obviously added by M. Paulin Paris.

[141] On this point I need only refer to M. Gaston Paris, Introduction
to the Huth _Merlin_, p. viii.

[142] I do not discuss here how far this romance represents the
original Borron-Perceval poem. As it stands, it is certainly not
Borron's work. The question is, are we to consider it the work of a
later writer, or does it represent an early _Perceval_ romance, worked
over for cyclic purposes?

[143] Some years ago, when preparing my translation of the _Parzival_,
I found in the _Gesta Comites Andegavorum_ a summary of the closing
events of Arthur's life closely agreeing with that of the Didot
_Perceval_. The connection between Perceval and Angevin tradition has
not, in my opinion, received sufficient attention.

[144] We have seen reason to believe that the original _Perceval_ story
did early affect the _Lancelot_, and this argument, which we used at
first of the independent, becomes strengthened when we examine the
cyclic form.

[145] If this be true, it would throw an interesting light on the
conjunction of the _Queste_ and _Perceval li Gallois_ in the well-known
Welsh MS. translated by the Rev. R. Williams. The compiler of the MS.
may have had versions of the two _Lancelot_ cycles before him and have
taken the _Queste_ from each, perhaps doubtful which was the right
version.

[146] Hucher, vol. i. p. 421.

[147] Quoted by Professor Heinzel: '_Über die französischen
Gralromane_,' p. 177. The parallel passage is on p. 279, vol. ii. of
Dr. Evans' translation, _The High History of the Holy Grail_; but it is
not included in the Welsh translation.

[148] Professor Heinzel's study did not come into my hands till the MS.
of this chapter had been sent to the press. The support afforded to
my theory by the above expression of opinion was most welcome to me.
A point which deserves notice in connection with this romance is the
appearance in it of the above-named _Briant des Illes_, and the story
of the death of _Lohot_, King Arthur's son. So far as I know, no other
prose romance knows either of these characters, but Chrétien refers to
both in his _Erec_, ll. 6730 and 1732. I think it is possible that the
name given by Wolfram von Eschenbach to Arthur's son, _Ilinot_, may
rest upon a misreading of _Lohot_; the story connected with the latter
is certainly curiously archaic in detail.

[149] I cannot at all agree with Dr. Wechssler's view that the Galahad
_Queste_ has been largely worked over; on the contrary it has been the
least tampered with of all the Arthurian romances. I shall show this
presently by comparison of texts.

[150] The worst fault of Dr. Wechssler's Grail study is that he
predicates the distinctive traits of Perceval as being of Galahad--to
whom they never in any sense belonged. Galahad is not Perceval's
understudy, much less is he his original: he is an absolutely and
entirely independent creation. The only quality they have in common is
that of virginity, which is not of them, but of the monkish redactors
of the legend. It is certainly no part of the primitive _Perceval_ tale.

[151] The passage which represents Gawain as admitting himself to be
the slayer of eighteen out of the twenty-two knights who have lost
their lives in the _Queste_, Baudemagus, his dearest friend according
to the _Merlin Suite_, among them, should, I think, be printed at the
end of the _Queste_, not at the beginning of the _Mort Artur_, where it
is now generally found. It is entirely in accordance with the tone of
the first named romance, and out of keeping with the latter. Moreover,
both the Dutch _Lancelot_ and the 1533 version print it in the former
position. The compiler of the _Tristan_ has generally been supposed
to be the first to introduce the vilification of Gawain's character;
in the light of Dr. Wechssler's suggestion it would be interesting to
examine whether this presentment is to be found in the _Tristan before_
its contamination with the later _Lancelot-Map_ cycle. I think there
were peculiarities in the original Gawain story, which, misunderstood
by later compilers, helped to cast a false light on his character,
but it is open to question whether it was the _Tristan_ compiler or
the author of the Galahad _Queste_ who was the original propagator of
calumny.

[152] The _Queste_ writer dwells upon instances of heroes betrayed
through their love of women--Samson, Solomon, etc. If he had known the
earlier _Lancelot-Borron_ story, with the instance of Merlin's betrayal
by the lady who brought up Lancelot, he would surely have made use of
so very _à propos_ an illustration.

[153] I suspect this sword of being the sword of the original Perceval
story, for which an edifying legend has been invented. It probably
belongs to a very early stage of the tradition. I hope some day to make
it the subject of special study.

[154] Cf. the Perceval of Chrétien, and more especially the Parzival
of Wolfram, with the hero of the Didot _Perceval_ or _Perceval li
Gallois_. I consider the two first represent the independent, the two
latter the cyclic form.

[155] It may be noted here that in Wolfram's version of the _Perceval_
story--a version which, as we have seen, has certainly influenced the
_Lancelot_ legend--the Grail-bearer, Repanse-de-Schoie eventually
becomes the mother of Prester John. The circumstance that the details
of the begetting of Galahad are found in the _Lancelot_, and not in the
_Queste_, suggests the consideration that the author of this latter
romance may have worked over the section of the _Lancelot_ in question,
so as to bring it into superficial accord with his story. Or he _may_
have worked in conjunction with one of the later redactors.

[156] Chrétien does not appear to know anything about him: in the
_Charrette_, for instance, had he known Bohort as represented in later
legend, he would certainly have made him, and not Gawain, undertake the
conflict with Meleagant, for which Lancelot threatens to be too late.
The role of 'helpful friend,' played by Gawain in the earlier versions
of the legend, is passed over to Bohort in the later.

[157] On this point cf. what I have said before as to the development
of the _Chansons de Geste_; p. 92 note.

[158] 1. Edited by Dr. Jonckbloet, 2 vols., 1850, will be referred to
as =D. L.=

2. Edition in 3 vols., a complete copy is contained in the Douce
collection in the Bodleian Library, referred to as =1533=.

3. _Morte Arthur_, edited by Dr. Sommer, vol. iii., _Sources of
Malory_, the sections entitled _The Lancelot Proper_, _The Quest of the
Holy Grail_, and _La Morte au Arthur_; all three are referred to as =S.=

4. _Queste del Saint Graal_, ed. Furnivall--=Q.=

5. _Morte Arthur_, Sommer (vol. i. text)--=M.=

6. The Welsh _Queste_ (ed. Rev. R. Williams, 1876), which I have
also consulted, being, in its available form, the translation of a
translation, scarcely affords reliable ground for comparison; it is,
moreover, a very free rendering of the text. Nevertheless, as it is
well to make use of all available versions, I have, in the cases where
the original text appears to be fairly represented, added this reading
under the heading =W.=

[159] Cf. Jonckbloet, _Roman van Lancelot_, vol. i. p. lvii.

[160] To speak quite correctly it really begins rather before the
_Agravain_ proper. I have noted this further on. M. Paulin Paris
remarks (_Romans de la Table Ronde_, vol. v. p. 296), with regard to
the _Agravain_, that we find it 'le plus souvent copié isolément, ou
bien complétement séparé des autres parties.' One of the useful hints
of this scholar which might have earlier been taken into consideration.

[161] In this connection it is amusing to find Dr. Wechssler (_Sage
vom Heiligen Gral_, pp. 166-167) remarking complacently that the
achievement of the adventures announced by the Grail Messenger '_wird
nirgends erzählt_.' The Dutch _Lancelot_ has been edited and available
for _fifty_ years. I must own that the result of my examination of
this, and of the version of 1533, equally available, has been to
seriously shake my belief in the soundness and reliability of foreign
criticisms of the Arthurian cycle. It is quite clear that the material
at our disposal, limited as it is, has not yet been properly examined.

[162] The romances not being named in the =D. L.=, I have adopted for
convenience' sake the names given to them by M. Gaston Paris.

[163] Abstracts of these episodic romances are given by M. Gaston
Paris, in vol. xxx. of _Hist. Litt. de la France_.

[164] Dr. Sommer says, and correctly, that the '_pomier_' must be the
older version.

[165] This account of Lancelot being found asleep and carried off by
three queens should be compared with that of Renouart found sleeping
and carried off to Avalon by three 'fays.'

I assume throughout that Dr. Sommer's summary correctly represents his
text, but I admit that I have my doubts on this point; certainly in the
_Queste_ section he gives some most mistaken readings; indeed, apart
from the evidence of =D. L.= and =1533= the whole _Lancelot-Queste_
section needs revision. It is unfortunate that some foreign scholars
have been so ready to accept Dr. Sommer's statements without taking the
trouble to verify them.

[166] I do not think this is a proper name, but the equivalent of
_Grave_=Count.

[167] No other version mentions, as does =M.=, that the ladies won
their living by 'al maner of sylke werkes,' but the whole story looks
so like a copy of Yvain's adventure at the Château de Pesme Aventure
that I think it may have been in his source.

[168] Of course M. Paulin Paris's book, being greatly condensed and
modernised, cannot be used for textual criticism; but the compiler
was a scholar of very wide learning, and there are numerous notes
and hints, which we, of a later generation, make a great mistake in
disregarding.

[169] This lady, never mentioned by =M.=, plays an important rôle in
the prose _Lancelot_.

[170] Here I take the opportunity of saying that I entirely dissent
from Dr. Sommer's assertion that Gareth is the equivalent of the
French _Guerresches_ rather than _Gaheret_. It is this latter (in the
=D. L.= _Gariëtte_) which =M.= renders by Gareth. I have paid a good
deal of attention to this question, and have come to the conclusion
that, although in the descriptive summary of King Lot's sons, found
in the _Lancelot_, Guerresches (Gurrehes) is said to be the youngest,
save Mordred, and Gawain's favourite, yet the adventures ascribed to
Gaheret (variants, Gaheriet, Gariëtte, Garhiës) throughout mark him as
the original of Gareth; a point which etymology alone would, I think,
decide in his favour! This much is certain, wherever =M.= and the
French versions can be compared we find Gaheret and _not_ Guerresches.
When Dr. Sommer takes it upon himself, as he does in the quotations
from the French contained in the _Mort Artur_ section, to arbitrarily
change the _Gaheret_ of all the foreign versions into _Guerresches_,
because the latter agrees with his preconceived ideas, he is setting
what I must consider as a most undesirable precedent; we cannot take
these liberties with the texts and hope to arrive at a satisfactory and
scientific conclusion. As pointed out in my review of Dr. Wechssler's
Grail Study, once allow such a substitution, and what is to prevent
us from a series of editions emendated to suit the personal views
of each editor? I think myself that Gaheret and Guerresches may
originally have been one, but that confusion arose from Mordred being
sometimes considered as Lot's, sometimes as Arthur's, son, and that a
tradition of _four_ sons of King Lot having been established early in
the evolution of the romantic story, the personality of the third was
doubled to make up the correct number. This is only a suggestion, but
there is certainly a confusion as to identity in the French versions,
though there is no confusion as to the original of =M.=

[171] It seems likely that this was in =M.='s source, as we read that
the old man has a spear in his hand, 'and that spere was called the
spere of vengeaunce.' But the old man never speaks of it to Bors.

[172] As regards the mention of Galahad and Lancelot in =1533=, I find
I have no special note. They are certainly not in =D. L.= and the two
versions are in such habitual accord that I think I must have noted it
had they differed here. Still, I think it only fair to point out my
omission.

[173] On p. 200 of the _Studies_ there is a mistake. Dr. Sommer speaks
of the fight between _Bors_ and Perceval and their healing by the
Grail. It should, of course, be _Hector_, not _Bors_. We may note here
that in this instance the Grail is stated to be the dish out of which
Our Lord ate the Paschal lamb in the house of Simon the Leper; there is
no mention of its containing the Blood of Christ, or of its being borne
by a maiden as in =M.=

[174] There is no mention of Balyn's sword: this is clearly an
interpolation of =M.=

[175] This passage throws into strong relief the absolute unreality of
the Galahad _Queste_. The hero knows all about the Grail, its keeper,
where it is to be found, his own relation to it. He has grown up
under its shadow as it were. Nor need he fulfil any test to gain it:
in all the records of his adventures there is no temptation such as
that undergone by Perceval or Bohort; he is as fit to become keeper
of the Grail (for this and not Grail-_King_ he practically becomes)
when he leaves Arthur's court as when he finally, after a series of
aimless adventures, arrives at Corbenic. Contrast this with the earlier
versions: the hero knows nothing of the Grail; not till after he has
beheld the Talisman and failed to accomplish the necessary test does he
even hear the name; when he would make amends for his negligence he can
no longer find the castle, and not till he has proved himself worthy
through long-continued trial is the opportunity once lost again offered
to him. Neither do the inhabitants of the Grail Castle know their
deliverer; they hope that it may be he, since they believe none other
might find the way, but they do not know him, whereas Galahad is well
known to the dwellers in Corbenic.

[176] Dr. Sommer's description of the swearing of the questers, on p.
210 of the _Studies_, is utterly wrong. In every version Arthur calls
on Gawain to swear first, when Baudemagus interposes, saying that he
who is to achieve the quest should be the first to swear. Consequently
Galahad swears first, and is followed by Lancelot, Gawain, Perceval,
Bohort, Lionel and Hélie le Blank. Baudemagus is in no instance the
first to swear.

[177] Dr. Sommer's summary is again misleading, and entirely
misrepresents the general character of the incident.

[178] _Studies_, p. 212.

[179] Cf. Dr. Sommer's remark on p. 212. I cannot recall a single
instance in which the equivalents to =M.= give any other reading.

[180] On p. 212, Dr. Sommer states that =Q.= does not, at this point of
the story, say what becomes of Perceval. This is wrong; =Q.= distinctly
says he leaves Lancelot _to return to the recluse_.

[181] In his summary of the conversation on p. 213, Dr. Sommer again
misrepresents his text--_all_ agree in saying that Perceval asks his
aunt about his mother and 'parens,' not that the aunt asks Perceval!

[182] The adventure of Perceval on the rock agrees closely with that of
Mordrain in the _Grand S. Graal_. There also are two ships--in one a
man who encourages, in the other a woman who tempts, him. In both cases
the woman accuses the man of being an enchanter; in both her ship is
covered with black silk, and she departs in a tempest. Cf. Hucher, _Le
S. Graal_, vol. ii. pp. 354, _et seq._

[183] _S. Graal_, ii. p. 444.

[184] As I said before, this _may_ be due to the influence of
_Morien_, but we must not overlook the fact that this poem certainly
has some curious points of contact with the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von
Eschenbach, which also knows of the hero (or more accurately here, his
son) regaining his kingdom, which he also does in _Perceval li Gallois_.

[185] The scribe of the original MS. may have had to condense on
account of space here, which is contrary to the usual practice of
=1533=; but in a printed edition it is not easy to decide the real
value and significance of such omissions.

[186] =1533= _ten_, representing the number as thirteen, Galahad taking
the place of Our Lord. This is a point on which we might expect to find
different readings, according as the compiler held, or did _not_ hold,
Judas to have been present at the Institution--a question on which a
difference of opinion has always existed.

[187] This is the passage to which I referred in connection with the
Yvain sources, p. 76. This son of King Claudas is, no doubt, the same
who played such a valiant part in the war between Lancelot and his
father, related at great length in the _Lancelot_.

[188] This arrival of the nine knights at the Grail Castle, and their
share in the Grail revelation, is a striking proof of the unreality of
the Galahad _Queste_ quâ _quest_, on which I have remarked elsewhere.
Who are these knights? What claim have they to be admitted to a feast
so holy that even King Pelles and his son are excluded? Practically
they are as much achievers of the Quest as Galahad himself. The fact
is the writer is so taken up with the religious symbolism of the relic
that in exaggerating and insisting on symbolic details he loses sight
of the real point of his story. I very much doubt whether any one but
the Grail Winner himself ought to reach, or was ever contemplated
as reaching, the Grail Castle, much less be witness of the full
explanation of the relic. To this it may be objected that Gawain
reaches it; but Gawain was certainly at one time looked upon as the
Grail Winner, and I believe it is only in this character that he ever
found the castle. The accessibility of Corbenic is a _very_ weak point
of the Galahad _Queste_.

[189] I cannot agree with M. Gaston Paris's suggestion that this
passage, which he takes as part of the _Mort Artur_, refers to an
earlier _Queste_ redaction. A _Queste_ giving a full account of the
fate of so many of the knights engaged would be of portentous length,
and there is absolutely no sign of this Galahad _Queste_ having existed
in another form. I regard it as a summing up, by the author, of the
general results of the expedition, a _postscriptum_ which enabled him
to have a final fling at his _bête-noire_ Gawain. The addition of
Baudemagus's name may have been his work, or that of a copyist, and
designed to give point to his accusation. Whether the tradition that he
should be killed by Gawain arose from this passage, or was incorporated
in the _Merlin_ from another source we cannot say. The Baudemagus
tradition demands study. In the _Merlin_ he is represented as but
six years older than Gawain, whose dearest friend he is, but in the
_Charrette_ he appears as quite an old man, whose son, Meleagant, is
the contemporary of Gawain and Lancelot; while in the prose _Lancelot_
and _Queste_ he appears as the devoted friend of the family of King
Ban, sharing the adventures of these young knights on an equal footing.
The whole presentment is hopelessly confused. The frequent reference
to the Arthurian records, as kept in the 'almeryes' at Salisbury,
appears to me to be a parallel case to the allusions in the Charlemagne
Romances to the records at S. Denys. I suspect there is as much, or as
little, truth in the one ascription as in the other.

[190] Cf. _Studies_, p. 214. Dr. Sommer uses as an argument for this
the difference of spelling in the name of _Corbenic_, but this proves
nothing. =D. L.= has at least four ways of spelling this word, and
sometimes a variant occurs in the space of a few lines. The general
character of the name is always preserved, and in MSS. that have been
frequently copied, to say nothing of printed, the substitution of one
letter for another is too frequent to call for remark.

[191] Dr. Wechssler in his _Lancelot_ study announces solemnly, '_So
viel aber steht für uns fest, dass Malorys Quelle für sein sechstes
Buch nicht die Branche eines Cyklus, sondern ein selbständiges
Originalwerk gewesen ist_' (_Gral-Lancelot_, p. 35). But we now see it
was beyond any doubt part of a cyclic work.

[192] Cf. Appendix, p. 237.

[193] I take this opportunity of strongly protesting against the
tone assumed by Professor Foerster on the question of Malory. He has
not himself examined the question of the sources, but has simply
accepted all Dr. Sommer's far too hasty and inadequately founded
conclusions. When he says, on p. lxv. of the _Charrette_, '_Der
überall seine Quellen und zwar nur seine Quellen und obendrein noch
treu wiedergebende Malory ist ein Phantasiegeschöpf der Walliser und
Engländer_,' he is simply dogmatising in an unwarrantable manner on a
question with regard to which he has no _locus standi_. Exaggerated as
the statement is, and is meant to be, it is infinitely nearer the truth
than are many of Professor Foerster's own hypotheses.

[194] Cf. Appendix, p. 241.

[195] The passage quoted by Dr. Wechssler (_Gral-Lancelot_, p. 60,
_et seq._), and which he considers belongs to an earlier version of
the _Queste_, is manifestly only a condensed variant of the ordinary
_Queste_ into which an allusion to Tristan and Pallamedes has been
clumsily introduced.

[196] This seems to point to the fact that the _Agravain_ section of
the _Lancelot_ is that which offers the most important variants, and
is the most likely to reward the careful critic. The final section is
practically based upon a romance foreign to the original _Lancelot_
story, and which has been incorporated into it; consequently we may
expect to find all the versions in pretty general agreement as regards
the _Mort Artur_ proper.

[197] Cf. _Studies_, p. 220.

[198] Cf. Appendix, p. 237.

[199] Referred to in future as =M. A.=

[200] As I have said before, there can be no doubt which of the two
is the prototype of Gareth; also, subsequent study has shown me that,
outside the _Lancelot_ proper and the romances which have been modified
for cyclic purposes, we rarely find any mention of Guerresches, whereas
we often meet with Gariët. I am strongly of opinion that originally the
two characters were one, and that in that earlier form the knight was
Gaheriet or Gariët.

[201] _Studies_, p. 254.

[202] Throughout this section it must be borne in mind that =S.=
systematically replaces the _Guerresches_ of his text by _Gaheriet_.
This latter sides throughout with Gawain.

[203] It is of course possible that a negative may have dropped out
here.

[204] On p. 260, Dr. Sommer makes a strange mistake. We are told that
Bohort fights against Ywain; to this Dr. Sommer appends a note of
exclamation, and a footnote to the effect that Ywain has already been
killed by Gawain, as related in the _Queste_. Of course it was not
the '_Chevalier au Lion_,' but his bastard half-brother, '_Yvain li
avoutres_,' who was slain on that occasion. The text of =Q.= is quite
clear.

[205] On p. 261, Dr. Sommer again falls into a curious error of
identity. We are told that King Karados assists at the council between
Arthur, Lancelot, and Gawain, when the fight is determined upon. Dr.
Sommer reminds us in a note that Karados had been previously slain
by Lancelot! That was, of course, the giant of that name, brother
to Turquine; _this_ is the famous Karados '_Brief-bras_,' sometimes
regarded as Arthur's nephew. Dr. Sommer's apparent lack of familiarity
with the minor characters of the Arthurian cycle is inexplicable.

[206] On p. 263 the parallel passages quoted from =M.= and the English
=M. A.= make mention of _Baudemagus_ as one of Lancelot's councillors,
whereas at the end of the _Queste_ his death at the hand of Gawain is
recorded. Cf. this with my remarks on the Baudemagus legend, p. 184. I
do not think this story of his death was a genuine part of the cyclic
_Lancelot_, but belonged to another line of tradition known to the
author of =Q.= from the Merlin _Suite_, and unintelligently quoted by
him. This, which is a real discrepancy, as there is but one Baudemagus,
Dr. Sommer does not remark upon!

[207] Cf. chap. i. p. 5.

[208] (_a_) chap. ii., the _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven;
(_b_) chaps. iii. and iv., _Le cerf au pied blanc, Le Chevalier de la
Charrette_; (_c_) chaps. vi., vii., and viii., the prose _Lancelot_.

[209] Cf. chap. vii., _The loves of Lancelot and Guinevere_.

[210] Cf. pp. 97, 124, 129.

[211] I do not here intend to imply any opinion as to the _original_
nature of the Grail, only to refer to the undoubted fact that _as
connected with Perceval_ it is more or less religious in character.

[212] Dr. Sommer's study on Malory is a case in point. It is a work
of great extent, carried out with the most painstaking perseverance,
yet because he omitted to consult such accessible texts as the Dutch
translation and the Bodleian _Lancelot_, and assumed the general
unanimity of the printed versions, a very important section of his work
is largely deprived of value, and urgently requires revision.

[213] The parallel with the edition of 1533 begins vol. ii. fo. xxxix.;
with the abstract of M. Paulin Paris, vol. v. chap. cxxii. That is,
somewhat earlier than the beginning of the _Agravain_ section proper.

[214] Is this perhaps the Sir Marrok of the were-wolf story?--=M.=,
Book XIX. chap. ix.; also vol. iii. of _Arthurian Romances
Unrepresented in Malory_.

[215] =D. L.= always has the form _Walewein_.

[216] This name is spelt _Hestore_ throughout. On the whole the
spelling of proper names in =D. L.= is very erratic, and varies greatly.

[217] This adventure of the Perilous Cemetery is one of the
'cross-references' to which I have referred earlier. It is mentioned
both in _G. S. Graal_ and _Queste_. The wording here is not very
clear, but it does not, I think, mean that Lancelot has already failed
in the Grail adventure, but that he shall come to the cemetery after
he _has_ failed; which is fulfilled in _Queste_. At the same time we
must remember that in _Perceval li Gallois_, which knows nothing of
Galahad or the _Queste_, Lancelot fails for the same reason, and more
completely, as the Grail does not appear at all in his presence, so
this _may_ refer to the earlier story.

[218] It may be noted that Chrétien knows nothing of a dove connected
with the Grail, whereas Wolfram does.

[219] I have before remarked on the uncertain spelling of this name in
=D. L.=, the above is the more usual form.

[220] From this it appears that Gawain's failure at the Grail castle
was in no way due to any defect of _character_, but to his omission
of the reverence due to the Grail, of the sacrosanct nature of which
he was ignorant. This explanation appears to me to be peculiar to the
_Lancelot_ version, which otherwise, as I have pointed out, regards
Gawain with great respect.

[221] Certain details in this adventure recall that of the 'Joie de la
court' in _Erec_.

[222] I think this is probably the explanation of A.'s vision, when
he sees G. after death surrounded by the souls of poor men 'who have
helped G. to conquer the heavenly kingdom.' Cf. Sommer, _Studies_, p.
266.

[223] These passages illustrate the difficulty previously referred to,
of identifying the original of Gareth. I believe it can only be done by
comparing the parallel adventures in =M=. and his source.

[224] In the account of the final battle all versions I have consulted
give one hundred thousand on each side killed; the above is much more
reasonable.

[225] There is a _lacuna_ of a few lines here in =D. L.=, so this may
well have been in the text.

[226] This adventure of Ywein and the giant's shield should be compared
with _Meraugis de Portlesguez_, ll. 1418 _et seq._ There lady has taken
dwarf's horse; and it is the eye, not the hand, which the messenger
loses. I believe the above to be the older version, as, though
L'Outredotez is always spoken of as a knight simply, Meraugis once
refers to him as a _giant_, which must have come from another version.

[227] This appears to be a reminiscence of Merlin and Vivienne. Cf.
_Merlin_, Sommer's ed., chap. xix.

[228] Cf. this with _Studies_, p. 186; also remarks, _supra_, p. 153.

[229] It is quite possible that we have here the story of Urre of
Hungary, which may well have been given at greater length in one of
the _Lancelot_ MSS. Also the source of Malory's version of Lancelot
being wounded by a maiden, Book XVIII. chap. xxii., where the prose
_Lancelot_ gives one of his squires.

[230] M. Paulin Paris omits this adventure in his summary, which only
records the _Lancelot_ sections. It is thus apparently lacking in the
MS. used.

[231] This is one of the adventures referred to previously, cf. pp.
137-139, _Grand S. Graal_, vol. iii. p. 303 _et seq._ It is worth
noting that it is only in the passages parallel to _Grand S. Graal_
that L.'s relations with queen are spoken of as sinful.

[232] This does not fit in with indications of story, which would place
Galahad's birth considerably earlier, L.'s visit to Corbenic being some
two or three years previous.

[233] All this section of Lancelot's adventures, from his meeting with
Sarras of Logres, differs very much from M. Paulin Paris's summary. Cf.
_Romans de la Table Ronde_, v. p. 322 _seq._

       *       *       *       *       *

Transcriber's Notes

  Obvious typographical errors have been corrected, but other variations
  in spelling, punctuation, and the use of accents have been retained,
  except where in conflict with the index.

  Italics are shown thus _italic_ and bold thus =bold=. The long s is
  represented by (s). The Old English letter yogh is represented by [gh].

  A vertical elliptical symbol on page 174 (Chapter 5) is represented
  thus ().

  A missing "the" was added in Chapter 5: "In these last instances the
  story may well have been in the _Lancelot_, and taken over by "the"
  compiler of _Grand S. Graal_; the _Queste_ makes very little of them;
  they only serve to keep up the connection between the 'secular' and
  'religious' sections."





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac - Studies upon its Origin, Development, and Position in the - Arthurian Romantic Cycle" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.