| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Three Days' Tournament - A Study in Romance and Folk-Lore. Being an Appendix to the - Author's 'Legend of Sir Lancelot'
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 Three Days' Tournament - A Study in Romance and Folk-Lore. Being an Appendix to the - Author's 'Legend of Sir Lancelot'" ***
_Grimm Library_
No. 15
THE THREE DAYS’ TOURNAMENT
(_Appendix to No. 12, ‘The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac’_)
_The Grimm Library._
(_Crown 8vo. Net Prices._)
I. GEORGIAN FOLK-TALES. Translated by Marjory Wardrop. _Cr. 8vo, pp._
xii + 175. 5_s._
II., III., V. THE LEGEND OF PERSEUS. By Edwin Sidney Hartland, F.S.A.
3 vols. £1, 7_s._ 6_d._
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._
Vol. III. ANDROMEDA. MEDUSA. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xxxvii + 225. 7_s._
6_d._
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._
Vol. II. With an Essay on the Celtic Doctrine of Rebirth, by Alfred
Nutt. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xii + 352. 10_s._ 6_d._
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._
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._
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. I., _pp._ xxiv + 363. II., _pp._ xiii + 400. £1,
1_s._
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. Translated from the Norwegian
by William Henry Schofield, Instructor in Harvard University.
_Cr. 8vo, pp._ lxxix + 408. 12_s._ 6_d._
XII. THE LEGEND OF SIR LANCELOT DU LAC. Studies upon its Origin,
Development, and Position in the Arthurian Romantic Cycle. By
Jessie L. Weston. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xii + 252. 7_s._ 6_d._
XIII. THE WIFE OF BATH’S TALE. Its Sources and Analogues. By C. F.
Maynadier. _Pp._ xii + 222. 6_s._
XIV. SOHRAB AND RUSTEM. The Epic Theme of a Combat between Father and
Son. A Study of its Genesis and Use in Literature and Popular
Tradition. By Murray Anthony Potter, A.M. _Pp._ xii + 235.
6_s._
_All rights reserved_
THE
Three Days’ Tournament
A Study in Romance and Folk-Lore
_Being an Appendix to the Author’s ‘Legend of Sir Lancelot’_
By
Jessie L. Weston
AUTHOR OF ‘THE LEGEND OF SIR GAWAIN’ ETC., ETC.
London
Published by David Nutt
At the Sign of the Phœnix
Long Acre
1902
Edinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable
PREFACE
The Study comprised in the following pages should, as the title
indicates, be regarded as an Appendix to the Studies on the Lancelot
Legend previously published in the Grimm Library Series. As will be
seen, they not only deal with an adventure ascribed to that hero, but
also provide additional arguments in support of the theory of romantic
evolution there set forth. Should the earlier volume ever attain to the
honour of a second edition, it will probably be found well to include
this Study in the form of an additional chapter; but serious students of
Arthurian romance are unfortunately not so large a body that the speedy
exhaustion of an edition of any work dealing with the subject can be
looked for, and, therefore, as the facts elucidated in the following
pages are of considerable interest and importance to all concerned in
the difficult task of investigating the sources of the Arthurian legend,
it has been thought well to publish them without delay in their present
form.
In the course of this Study I have, as opportunity afforded, expressed
opinions on certain points upon which Arthurian scholars are at issue.
Here in these few introductory words I should like, if possible, to make
clear my own position with regard to the question of Arthurian criticism
as a whole. I shall probably be deemed presumptuous when I say that, so
far, I very much doubt whether we have any one clearly ascertained and
established fact that will serve as a definite and solid basis for the
construction of a working hypothesis as to the origin and development of
this immense body of romance. We all of us have taken, and are taking,
far too much for granted. We have but very few thoroughly reliable
critical editions, based upon a comparative study of all the extant
manuscripts. Failing a more general existence of such critical editions,
it appears impossible to hope with any prospect of success to ‘place’
the various romances.[1]
Further, it may be doubted if the true conditions of the problem, or
problems, involved have even yet been adequately realised. The Arthurian
cycle is not based, as is the Charlemagne cycle, upon a solid substratum
of fact, which though modified for literary purposes is yet more or less
capable of identification and rectification; such basis of historic fact
as exists is extremely small, and for critical purposes may practically
be restricted to certain definite borrowings from the early chronicles.
The great body of Arthurian romance took shape and form in the minds of
a people reminiscent of past, hopeful of future, glory, who interwove
with their dreams of the past, and their hopes for the future, the
current beliefs of the present. To thoroughly understand, and to be able
intelligently and helpfully to criticise the Arthurian Legend, it is
essential that we do not allow ourselves to be led astray by what we may
call the ‘accidents’ of the problem—the moulding into literary shape
under French influence—but rather fix our attention upon the
‘essentials’—the radically Celtic and folk-lore character of the
material of which it is composed.
We need, as it were, to place ourselves _en rapport_ with the mind alike
of the conquered and the conquerors. It is not easy to shake ourselves
free from the traditions and methods of mere textual criticism and treat
a question, which is after all more or less a question of scholarship,
on a wider basis than such questions usually demand. Yet, unless I am
much mistaken, this adherence to traditional methods, and consequent
confusion between what is essential and what merely accidental, has
operated disastrously in retarding the progress of Arthurian criticism;
because we have failed to realise the true character of the material
involved, we have fallen into the error of criticising Arthurian romance
as if its beginnings synchronised more or less exactly with its
appearance in literary form. A more scientific method will, I believe,
before long force us to the conclusion that the majority of the stories
existed in a fully developed, coherent, and what we may fairly call a
romantic form for a considerable period before they found literary
shape. We shall also, probably, find that in their gradual development
they owed infinitely less to independent and individual imagination than
they did to borrowings from that inexhaustible stock of tales in which
all peoples of the world appear to have a common share.
Thus I believe that the first two lessons which the student of Arthurian
romance should take to heart are (_a_) the extreme paucity of any
definite critical result, (_b_) the extreme antiquity of much of the
material with which we are dealing.
But there is also a third point as yet insufficiently realised—the
historic factors of the problem. We hear a great deal of the undying
hatred which is supposed to have existed between the Britons and their
Saxon conquerors; the historical facts, such as they are, have been
worked for all they are worth in the interests of a particular school of
criticism; but so far attention has been but little directed to a series
of at least equally remarkable historic facts—the deliberate attempts
made to conciliate the conquered Britons by a dexterous political use of
their national beliefs and aspirations.
In 1894, when publishing my first essay in Arthurian criticism, the
translation of Wolfram von Eschenbach’s _Parzival_, I drew attention to
the very curious Angevin allusions of that poem, and the definite
parallels to be traced between the incidents of the story and those
recorded in the genuine Angevin Chronicles. I then hazarded the
suggestion that many of the peculiarities of this version might be
accounted for by a desire on the part of the author to compliment the
most noted prince of that house by drawing a parallel between the
fortunes of Perceval and his mother, Herzeleide, and those of Henry of
Anjou and his mother, the Empress Maude. Subsequent study has only
confirmed the opinion then tentatively expressed; and I cannot but feel
strongly that the average method of criticism, which contents itself
merely with discussion of those portions of Wolfram’s poem which
correspond to other versions of the _Perceval_ story, while it neglects
those sections (_i.e._ the Angevin allusions and the Grail ‘Templars’)
to which no parallel can be found elsewhere, is a method which entirely
defeats its own object, and one from which only partial results can be
obtained.
For critical purposes, and for determining certain central problems of
the location and growth of the Arthurian Legend in literary form, I
doubt whether the _Parzival_ be not the most important extant text of
the entire cycle: once realise—as if we thoroughly understand the
historic conditions of the time we can scarcely fail to realise—that
those two first introductory books could not possibly be written at the
date of the composition of the German poem, and we shall then begin to
recognise the extreme importance of discovering the when, where, and why
of their original composition. Could we solve the riddle of the date and
authorship of the earlier poem, that containing the Angevin allusions,
the Grail Temple with its knights, and, we may add, the numerous
Oriental references, we should, I believe, hold in our hand the
master-key which would unlock the main problems confronting us. In all
probability that unlocking when it comes will furnish us with more than
one surprise.
The Arthurian problem is one which appeals not only to the literary
critic but also to the historian. Have we not in the past been tempted
to regard it too exclusively as the property of the one, and to hold
that a British chieftain of whose name and exploits such scanty record
survives can scarcely be a worthy subject of serious historic research?
But if the study of history fails to elucidate much concerning the
personality and feats of Arthur, it may yet discover much with regard to
the growth and development of his legend.
The Arthurian cycle, both in literary value and in intrinsic interest,
forms undoubtedly the most important group in Mediæval literature. Is it
not a reproach to scholars that to-day, at the beginning of the
twentieth century, there should be such an utter lack of knowledge of
the proper order and relation of the members of that group? The most
brilliant Arthurian scholars can offer us no more than an accurate
acquaintance with certain texts, and, perhaps, an hypothesis as to their
relative order. The result is that a period extending over some fifty
years or more of unusual literary activity, and far-reaching influence,
lies at present outside the area of scientific knowledge, and is, for
teaching purposes, practically non-existent. We cannot write the history
of Arthurian literature, we cannot teach or lecture with confidence upon
any portion of it, until a more determined and systematic attempt at
unravelling its many puzzles be made.
Is it not time to seriously consider the desirability of co-ordinating
the labours of individual scholars? At present each works, as Hal o’ the
Wynd fought, for his own hand, and it is only by a happy chance that the
work of one supplements and supports that of another. Is not the time
ripe for the formation of an International Society, composed of those
students, in France, Germany, America and England, who are sincerely
interested in the elucidation of this important section of Mediæval
literature, and who, working on an organised and predetermined plan,
shall co-operate towards rendering possible the compilation of a really
accurate and scientific history of the Arthurian cycle? Those who took a
share, however small, in such a work would at least have the
satisfaction of knowing that they were contributing, not to the
ephemeral curiosity or pleasure of the passing moment, but to the
enduring profit and permanent intellectual wealth of the world.
Dulwich, _September 1902_.
CONTENTS
PAGE
The Evidence of the Ipomedon, 1-14
The Tournament in Cligés, 14-21
The Tournament in Folk-Tale, 21-34
The Tournament in Romance, 34-43
The Bearing on the Lancelot Story, 43-51
Evidence for an Insular Version of the Romance, 51-59
THE THREE DAYS’ TOURNAMENT
I
_Sul ne sai pas de mentir lart_
_Walter Map reset ben sa part._
_Ipomedon_, fo. 82, ll. 29-30.
These words of the author of the _Ipomedon_ were, some years ago,
commented upon by Mr. Ward in his valuable _Catalogue of Romances in the
British Museum_, vol. i. He there remarks that the allusion is
especially valuable as being the direct ascription, by a contemporary,
of the character of romance-writer to Walter Map, and that in apparent
connection with the romance most persistently attributed to him—the
_Prose Lancelot_.
The suggestive remarks of Mr. Ward do not appear hitherto to have
attracted the attention they deserve. Recently, having occasion to write
a brief notice of Walter Map, they came, for the first time, under my
notice, and, taken in connection with certain points of the _Lancelot_
study in which I had for some time been engaged, assumed an unexpected
importance. It became evident to me that the whole question of the
connection of the _Ipomedon_ with Arthurian literature, and the light
which the words of the author might throw upon the relation to each
other of different forms of the same story, was well worth study; and
might eventually be of material assistance in determining the much
debated question of the position of Chrétien de Troyes in the Arthurian
cycle.
In the following pages I propose to examine, first, the exact nature and
value of the evidence of the _Ipomedon_ as regards Arthurian tradition;
second, its bearing upon the versions of a popular incident in
romance—the appearance of a knight at a tournament on three consecutive
days, in the disguise of three different suits of armour—especially with
relation to the versions of the _Prose Lancelot_, the _Lanzelet_ of
Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, and the _Cligés_ of Chrétien de Troyes.
To begin with the _Ipomedon_. As is probably known to most scholars, the
scene of this story is laid in the south of Europe—Sicily, Calabria,
Apulia—and the names of the characters are largely borrowed from
classical sources. The poem relates at considerable length the wooing of
the Princess of Calabria, known as _La Fière_, by Ipomedon, son of the
King of Apulia. (In the second part of the poem the hero’s father is
dead, and he is, himself, king.) The lady has made a vow to wed none but
the bravest of knights. Ipomedon, disguised as her cup-bearer, wins her
love, and at a three days’ tournament, in a varying armour of white,
red, and black, wins her hand, but disappears without claiming it, under
the pretext that he has not won sufficient fame to satisfy her pride. In
the second part of the poem the lady is threatened by an unwelcome
suitor, in the person of a hideous giant. Ipomedon, aware of her plight,
disguises himself as a fool, and goes to her uncle’s court, knowing that
she will send thither for aid. He demands from the king the gift of the
first combat that shall offer, which is granted as a mere joke. On the
appearance of the messenger sent by _La Fière_—the favourite friend of
the princess—Ipomedon claims the fulfilment of the king’s pledge, much
to the disgust of the maiden, who will have nothing to do with him at
first, but whose confidence he wins by his valiant deeds on the journey,
defeats and slays the giant; and hindered from evasion by her gallant
cousin, who proves to be his own unknown brother, finally marries _La
Fière_, and, we learn, is eventually slain with his brother before
Thebes.
The author of this poem calls himself Hue de Rotelande, and says that he
lives at Credehulle, which Mr. Ward identifies with Credenhill, near
Hereford. After completing the _Ipomedon_ he wrote a sequel,
_Prothesilaus_, which he dedicated to his patron, Gilbert Fitz-Baderon,
Lord of Monmouth. This Gilbert, the only one of his family so named, was
Lord of Monmouth certainly from 1176 to 1190-91, and may have succeeded
to the dignity earlier, as the last mention of his father is in 1165-66;
but the payment by Gilbert of a fine for trespassing in the royal
forests in 1176 is the first mention we have of him. As in the
_Ipomedon_ Hue refers to the siege of Rouen in 1174, it is clear that
both his poems fall between that date and 1190, the year of Gilbert’s
death, but we cannot date them more exactly.[2] It is, however, certain
that he wrote his poems on English ground, consequently it follows as a
matter of course that any incident of Arthurian romances to which he may
allude must have been known in England at that date.
Now what are the indications of familiarity with Arthurian tradition
which we find in the _Ipomedon_? Setting aside for the present the Three
Days’ Tournament, the main subject of our study, we may point out
certain other incidents which have attracted the attention of scholars.
Professor Kölbing,[3] in his study of the English versions of the poem,
remarks justly that every reader must be struck with the close
resemblance between the circumstances under which, in the second part of
the poem, Ipomedon undertakes the defence of _La Fière_ and the opening
of the _Bel Inconnu_ poems.[4] It may be pointed out that while in the
first instance the parallel is with the English rather than with the
French version, _i.e._, Ipomedon, like Libeaus Desconus, demands the
_first combat_ that shall offer, while Bel Inconnu simply asks that the
first request he shall make be granted, the feature that the maiden
leaves the court without waiting for her unwelcome defender agrees with
the French rather than with the English version: in the latter both
depart together. As in all romances of the _Bel Inconnu_ cycle, the
messenger is accompanied by a dwarf, who endeavours to induce a more
gentle treatment of the knight, and as in all she continues to flout the
hero till confuted by his deeds of valour. In the _Ipomedon_, certainly
the conversion is more complete, as she offers the hero her love, if he
will renounce the quest and accompany her to her own land. It is
impossible to read the _Ipomedon_ and to doubt that the author was
familiar with the story of Gawain’s unnamed son.[5]
Again, the seneschal of King Meleager, Cananeus, Caymys, or Kaenius, as
his name is variously spelt, with his sharp tongue and overbearing
manner, is strongly reminiscent of Sir Kay; and the parallel is further
brought out in the encounter with Ipomedon, where that hero thrusts him
from his steed, ‘_tope over tayle_,’ breaking in one version his
shoulder-blade, in another his arm.[6] This should be compared with
Lanzelet’s joust with Kay, and its result ‘_er stach hern Keiin so das
im die füeze harte hô ûf ze berge kaften und dem zalehaften daz houbet
gein der erde fuor_;[7] also with _Morien_,[8] where Arthur reminds Kay
of the result of his joust with Perceval—‘_Hine stac u dat u wel sceen
dat gi braect u canefbeen, ende dede u oec met onneren beide die vote
opwerd keren_.’
Professor Kölbing also points out that the position held by Cabaneus,
nephew of King Meleager, is analogous to that of Gawain, in the
Arthurian cycle (to which I would also add that the name of _La Fière_
recalls that of _L’Orgueilleuse de Logres_ in Chrétien), and decides
that the romance, as a whole, ‘_schliesst sich nach tendenz
characterzeichnung und handlung diese klasse (i.e. dem artus-kreise)
unverkennbar an_.’[9] That is, the _genre_ of composition was by 1174-90
so well established that it was freely imitated in romances entirely
unconnected with the cycle by subject-matter.
When, therefore, in direct connection with an adventure of which several
versions are preserved in the Arthurian cycle—the Three Days’
Tournament—we find the author of the poem excusing himself for somewhat
embroidering his tale, and quoting Walter Map as one who practises the
same art, our minds naturally turn to the romances of that cycle, and to
Map’s reputed connection with Arthurian story.
As is well known, the question as to the share which may rightly be
assigned to Walter Map in the evolution of the Arthurian legend is one
of the problems of modern criticism. At one time or another, with the
exception of the _Merlin_ and the _Tristan_, all the great prose
romances of the cycle, the _Lancelot_, in its completed form, the _Grand
S. Graal_, _Queste_, and _Mort Artur_, have been assigned to him,[10]
and till quite recently writers on early English literature did not
scruple to accept the tradition. Probably even to-day the majority would
name Walter Map as the populariser, if not the inventor, of the Grail
legend. Those, however, who are familiar at first hand with the romances
in question have long since realised that in their present form they
represent the result of a long period of accretion, and have undergone
many redactions; they cannot possibly, as they now stand, be held to be
the work of any one writer, certainly not of one who took so active and
leading a part in public affairs as did Map. Further, his own statement,
in the famous words recorded by Giraldus Cambrensis, to whom they were
addressed, ‘_Multa_ _scripsistis et multum adhuc scribitis et nos multa
diximus. Vos scripta dedistis et nos verba_,’ with the application that
follows, have been held by Professor Birch-Hirschfeld and other scholars
to be a direct denial on his part of any literary activity.[11] At the
same time we know Map did write, and was interested in romantic and
popular tales, further that he had the reputation of being a poet,[12]
and the persistence of the tradition connecting him with the Arthurian
cycle can hardly be set aside. The question is, do these words of Hue de
Rotelande throw any light upon this disputed point? Can we hope by the
aid of this contemporary of Map’s to arrive at a conclusion which may
assist us in determining the real nature of his contribution to the
development of this famous cycle, and will the ascertaining of this fact
help us, as the definite establishment of a single fact often does, to
solve other problems closely connected therewith? Mr. Ward, when he
wrote the article to which I have referred above, expressed a decided
opinion on this point; and it appears to me that by following up the
lines of research there indicated we shall attain results far more
important in themselves, and far more startling in their ultimate effect
than he then suspected.
First, let us see exactly what Hue says. The passage in question (which
will not be found in the translations) occurs at the end of the first
portion of the poem. The author has just been relating how his hero, who
is living at King Meleager’s court, in the assumed character of
body-servant to the queen, scouts the idea of attending the tournament
which is to decide who shall wed _La Fière_ of Calabria, loudly
expressing his preference for the pleasures of the chase. Each morning
he leaves the court before daylight, announcing his departure by loud
blasts of the horn; but having reached the forest, where his servant
awaits him with steed and armour, he sends his ‘Master,’ Tholomy, to
hunt in his stead; and arming himself each day in a different suit of
armour, white, red, and black, proceeds to the tournament, where he
carries off the prize for valour, unhorsing all the principal knights on
either side, even to the king himself, and his valiant nephew Cabaneus.
Each evening he returns to the forest, reassumes his hunter’s garb, and
with the spoils of the chase won by Tholomy takes his way to the court,
where he vaunts the skill of his hounds above that of the unknown
knight, and is roundly mocked for his lack of prowess by the ladies.
After the third day he leaves secretly, to return to his own land,
sending to the king, by the hand of a messenger, the spoils of his three
days’ victory. The seneschal, Cananeus, volunteers to bring him back,
and is punished for his officious interference, as related above.[13] At
the conclusion of this episode, Hue states that he is not lying—at least
not more than a little—and if he be ‘’tis but the custom of the day, and
all the blame should not be laid upon him, Walter Map is just as bad.’
_‘Ore entendez seignurs mut ben_
_Hue dit ke il ni ment de ren_
_Fors aukune feiz neent mut_
_Nuls ne se pot garder par tut_
_En mendre afere mut suvent_
_Un bon renable hom mesprent_
_El mund nen ad un sul si sage_
_Ki tuz iurz seit en un curage_
_Kar cist secles lad ore en sei_
_Nel metez mie tut sur mei_
_Sul ne sai pas de mentir lart_
_Walter Map reset ben sa part.’_
—P. 82, ll. 19-30.
Now shall we understand this merely as a general allusion, without any
special significance, or was there anything in the story which Hue had
just been relating which might reasonably be supposed to have brought
Map to his mind? Mr. Ward very pertinently draws attention to the fact
that this appearance at a tournament on successive days, in different
armour, is precisely an adventure attributed to Lancelot, and the
_Lancelot_ is the romance most persistently attributed to Map. The
parallel to which Mr. Ward refers is that contained in the earlier part
of the _Prose Lancelot_.[14]
Lancelot first appears at Arthur’s court in white armour: he is known as
‘le Blanc Chevalier.’ On his first absence after receiving knighthood he
is taken prisoner by the Lady of Malehaut, who detains him in her
castle. A tournament, of a very warlike nature, taking place between
Arthur and Galehault, the lady releases Lancelot, who, disguised in red
armour, performs deeds of surpassing valour. He returns to prison, and
on the encounter between the kings being renewed, again appears, this
time in black. Finally, he reveals himself to the queen, and tells her
that all the feats of arms he has achieved in the characters of white,
red, and black knight were undertaken in her honour.
The general resemblance is, as Mr. Ward remarks, too striking to be
overlooked; though, as he does _not_ remark, there are certain
differences which seem to indicate that the version of the _Prose
Lancelot_ has undergone some modification. Thus, there are not three
consecutive days, but Lancelot’s appearance in the three characters
occurs at widely separated intervals. Further, Mr. Ward does not seem to
be aware that this is but one instance out of three in which the same,
or a similar, adventure is attributed to Lancelot.
In the latter part of the _Prose Lancelot_, the section represented by
the Dutch translation, we find Arthur holding a tournament, which has
been suggested by Guinevere with the view of recalling Lancelot, who has
long been absent, to court, and heightening his fame. Lancelot returns
secretly, unknown to all but the queen, who sends him a message to come
and discomfit the knights who are jealous of him. Lancelot appears in
_red_ armour and overthrows them all. The queen demands another
tournament in three days’ time, when Lancelot appears as a _white_
knight, with the same result. After this he reveals himself to
Arthur.[15]
But the best parallel is that contained in the _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von
Zatzikhoven. Here Lanzelet makes his first appearance at court at a
three days’ tournament; the first day dressed in _green_, the second in
_white_, the third in _red_; overthrows all opposed to him, including
Kay,[16] and takes his departure, without revealing himself.
With these repeated parallels before us, it seems impossible to doubt
that when Hue de Rotelande referred to Walter Map, in connection with
the tournament episode of _Ipomedon_, he had in his mind a version of
the _Lancelot_, which also contained such a story, and which was
attributed to the latter writer.
But what could this version have been? Certainly not the _Prose
Lancelot_ in its present form. As we remarked before, this romance is
the result of slow growth and successive redactions, and the two
parallels contained in it bear marks of modification and dislocation. In
my recent studies on the Lancelot legend[17] I have pointed out that in
the process of evolution it certainly passed through a stage in which it
was closely connected with, and affected by, the _Perceval_ story.
Gradually the popularity of the hero of the younger tale obscured that
of the elder; and in the _Lancelot_, as we now have it, the traces of
_Perceval_ influence have almost disappeared from the majority of the
printed versions, though interesting survivals are still to be found in
certain manuscripts and in the Dutch translation. Now one of the best
known adventures attributed to Perceval is that in which the sight of
blood-drops on new-fallen snow—caused by a bird having been wounded, or
slain, by a hawk—recalls to his mind the lady of his love, and plunges
him into a trance; in which he is rudely attacked by Kay, who would
bring him by force to court. He retaliates by unhorsing the seneschal
with such force that he breaks, in one version both arms, in others, an
arm and a leg.[18] It should also be noted that in the _Peredur_ a raven
has alighted on the slain bird, and we have the three colours, black,
red, and white, recalling the lady’s raven hair, white skin, and crimson
lips and cheeks.[19]
Taking into consideration the proved connection existing between the
_Perceval_ and the earlier forms of the _Lancelot_, it would seem most
probable that a version of the tournament which included a similar
discomfiture of the seneschal would belong to an earlier stage of
evolution than one in which Kay did not appear. As I have pointed out
above,[20] the _Lanzelet_ version not only includes Kay’s overthrow, but
recounts it in words that forcibly recall the _Perceval_ episode.
It also seems probable that it was such a form which was known to the
author of the _Ipomedon_, as he makes the discomfiture of the seneschal
Cananeus, whose resemblance to Kay has already been pointed out, follow
immediately upon the tournament episode.
So far, then, as the priority of existing versions is concerned, we
must, I think, give a verdict in favour of the _Lanzelet_, though with
the reservation that even here there has been, as we shall presently
see, a certain modification of the story as known to Hue.
What now do we know of the source of the _Lanzelet_? From the statement
of the author,[21] we learn that the original of this poem was a French
book, ‘_daz welsche buoch von Lanzelete_,’ brought to Germany by Hugo de
Morville, one of the hostages who, in 1194, replaced Richard Cœur de
Lion in the prison of Leopold of Austria. Thus we know that the French
book must have been prior to that date, but so far no one has detected
any reference that would enable us to fix the period of composition more
accurately. But the character of the romance as we possess it—a
collection of episodes, many of them of marked folk-lore character,
loosely strung together, and harmonising but ill with each other—makes
it highly probable that the constituent parts of the romance had
possessed an independent existence prior to being strung together on the
slender thread of the hero’s personality. It is therefore perfectly
possible that the French source of the _Lanzelet_ was in existence
before Hue de Rotelande wrote the _Ipomedon_; it is more than possible,
indeed, as we shall see, a fact of almost certain demonstration—that the
adventure of the Three Days’ Tournament had been ascribed to Lancelot,
certainly by 1160, and most probably before that date.
In the Didot _Perceval_, a romance which probably formed part of a very
early cyclic redaction of the Arthurian legend, and one in which
Lancelot plays a very subordinate rôle, we find an allusion to ‘_le fìz
à la fille à la femme de Malehot_,’[22] which seems to suggest that even
at that comparatively early stage the incident had undergone the
modification familiar to us in the _Prose Lancelot_. In the result, I
think we shall find that it formed one of the first steps in the
development of the _Lancelot_ story.[23]
So far as the evidence of the _Ipomedon_ goes it suggests, if it does
not absolutely prove, that at the period when that poem was written
there was current a story which ascribed to Lancelot the adventures of
the Three Days’ Tournament, in a form which, as might be expected in any
early Lancelot version, showed traces of the influence of the
_Perceval_, and which was popularly attributed to Walter Map. Of the
versions which we now possess, that of _Lanzelet_ best corresponds to
these conditions.
CLIGÉS
But there is another claimant in the field, and one whose right to be
considered the original hero of the adventure it would, according to
Professor Foerster’s opinion, be sheer impiety to doubt!—the _Cligés_ of
Chrétien de Troyes. In the poem of that name the hero makes his first
appearance at Arthur’s court at a tournament lasting for _four_
successive days: he wears successively _black_, _green_, _red_, and
_white_ armour; and overthrows, on the three first days, Segramor,
Lancelot, and Perceval; fighting on the fourth day an undecided combat
with Gawain.[24] Professor Foerster, commenting on the _Lanzelet_,[25]
remarks of the tournament episode ‘_das Wechseln der Rüstung stammt aus
Cligés_; and further on[26] affirms that Chrétien ‘_sich—im Cligés
sicher als ganz selbständig gezeigt hat_,’ a statement he repeats on p.
cxxviii, and in another place[27] with even more emphasis, ‘_Dieser
selbe Kristian ist in einem Roman wie_ Niemand _ableugnen kann_ GANZ
SELBSTÄNDIG _vorgegangen, im Cligés_.’ That is, Professor Foerster
asserts, and as emphatically as print will allow him, that Chrétien was
entirely independent in _Cligés_; that the episode of the change of
armour is the same in the two poems, and was borrowed by the author of
the _Lanzelet_ from Chrétien, and therefore, if words mean anything,
that Chrétien invented the story, and that Cligés is the real and
original hero of the tale.
Well, if assertion were argument, and a liberal display of large type
could settle intricate questions of literary criticism, we might hold
the dependence of _Lanzelet_ upon _Cligés_ to be—not proven, no—but
determined. But there are some few heretics who suspect that Professor
Foerster’s _ipse dixit_, though imposed with all the weight of a Papal
_imprimatur_, is not really more competent to decide a problem of
sources than is that notoriously fallacious engine for the suppression
of free investigation, and therefore, _more heretico_, we will be
presumptuous enough to examine the question for ourselves.
So far as the dates of the _existing_ versions are concerned, be it said
at once that the _Cligés_ is the older; _i.e._ it is older than the
_Ipomedon_, the _Lanzelet_, or the _Prose Lancelot_; but how it stands
with regard to the lost French source of the _Lanzelet_ is not so easily
determined. The exact date of the _Cligés_ is not known. It was written
after _Erec_, the translations from Ovid, and the lost _Tristan_; but
before the _Charrette_ and the _Yvain_, which fall between the years
1164-73. Professor Foerster, in his Introduction to the _Charrette_,[28]
has expressed himself in favour of as late a date as possible for that
poem—towards 1170; and since the _Perceval_, Chrétien’s last work, was
written about 1182, we can scarcely place the beginning of his literary
career earlier than 1150. If we place the _Cligés_ before 1160, we
shall, I think, be ascribing too great an activity to the decade
1150-60, in comparison with 1160-70. It seems more suitable to place the
_Cligés_ about 1160; but, as we shall see, the argument is not affected
by a few years one way or the other.
The most important factor in the problem, the French source of the
_Lanzelet_, no longer exists,[29] yet it appears certain that the whole
question hinges upon the possibility of this, or an analogous French
_Lancelot_ story, having been in existence previous to the work of
Chrétien de Troyes. It therefore becomes necessary, not only to
carefully compare the two versions, that of the _Cligés_ and that of the
_Lanzelet_, but also to inquire as to the source from which the story
was originally derived. As we shall see, these two parts of our
investigation mutually supplement each other, and in the sum-total
present us with a compact and striking body of evidence.
As a first step in the inquiry we will take the _Cligés_, the
_Lanzelet_, and the _Ipomedon_ (as being anterior to the _Lanzelet_ in
its present form), and see if we can discover any traces of a knowledge
of Chrétien’s work on the part of the two later writers. The answer will
be unhesitatingly in the negative. In neither work is there any
reminiscence (with the exception of the episode in question) either in
name or incident of the _Cligés_. As a matter of fact, allusions to this
poem are exceptionally rare. Professor Foerster states that there were
two German translations, one by Ulrich von Türheim and another by Konrad
Fleck, but of these only fragments remain. The _Parzival_ once mentions
a Clîas, a knight of the Round Table, and in another place refers to the
story of Alexander and Soredamors, but in each case it is doubtful
whether the allusion is to Chrétien’s poem.[30] The English ‘_Sir
Cleges_’[31] has no connection whatever with the earlier hero, and
Malory’s allusions to a _Sir Clegis_ do not go beyond the mere name, and
cannot be identified with either. In my _Lancelot_ studies I have
commented upon the indifference with which _Cligés_ appears to have been
received as being somewhat curious considering the undoubted literary
value of the poem.[32]
On the other hand, the _Cligés_ knows Lancelot as one of Arthur’s most
valiant knights, the third in order of merit, a position he certainly
could not have held before his story had reached a fairly advanced stage
of development. Indeed, Chrétien’s references to this hero deserve
particular attention.[33] He is first mentioned in _Erec_ as a knight of
the Round Table, third in rank, the two first being Gawain and Erec, but
is only a name, taking no part in the action of the poem. In _Cligés_ he
occupies the same position, but here Perceval, and not Erec, ranks
second. Lancelot appears upon the scene once, and once only, when he is
overthrown by _Cligés_ at the tournament in question. In the _Charrette_
he is the hero of the poem, the first of Arthur’s knights, the lover of
the queen, and her rescuer from the prison of Meleagant. In the
_Chevalier au Lion_ which followed, his name is mentioned but once, and
that in connection with an allusion to the _Charrette_. In the
_Perceval_ his name never appears at all. It seems extraordinary that
the significance of these allusions, taken as a group, should so long
have escaped detection. As a matter of fact I failed to grasp their
importance myself when commenting upon them in my _Lancelot_ studies.
Thus, the tournament episode in _Cligés_ is so close a parallel to that
of the _Lanzelet_ that, as we have seen, Professor Foerster declares the
one to be the source of the other. The rescue of Guinevere from
Meleagant, the theme of the _Charrette_, parallels her rescue from
Falerîn, also in the _Lanzelet_. In both the queen is abducted against
her will; in both the prison is of an otherworld character: in the one
Lancelot is of the party of rescuers, but takes no prominent share in
the enterprise; in the other he is the sole agent of her deliverance. In
commenting upon the poem in my _Lancelot_ studies,[34] I pointed out
that the story was, in its essence, of so primitive a character, that it
must certainly be, in its origin, of an earlier date than any extant
literary version; and that, of the two before us, the _Lanzelet_, by its
unlocalised character, the details it gives of Falerîn’s stronghold, and
the comparatively unimportant position assigned to Lancelot, must be
considered the older.
Further, in the roll of knights named in _Erec_, following such
well-known names as Gawain, Erec, Lancelot, Gornemanz, le Biaus Coarz
(Bel Couart), Le lez Hardis (le Laid Hardi), and Melianz de Liz, we have
_Mauduiz li Sages_, who, as I have elsewhere pointed out (_Lancelot_, p.
80), can hardly be other than the enchanter of the _Lanzelet_, Malduz
der Wîse. Taking all these facts into consideration, the position
Chrétien assigns to Lancelot, and the two adventures (they are really
only two, the incidents of the _Charrette_ are all subsidiary to the
freeing of Guinevere) he records, is it not perfectly clear that
Chrétien knew, and followed, an early version of the _Lancelot_ story,
akin to, if not identical with, the lost French source of Ulrich von
Zatzikhoven? Is it not far more probable that in the _Cligés_ he
borrowed from the _Lancelot_ than that an adventure so persistently, and
so early, attributed to that well-known hero should have been borrowed
from the obscure _Cligés_?
If it be objected, as of course those who hold Professor Foerster’s
views will object, that Chrétien’s position in the literary world of the
day was such that it is infinitely more likely that he should be the
lender rather than the borrower, I would ask, but how if the story from
which he borrowed was held, rightly or wrongly, to be the work of Walter
Map? Map was a much more important personage than Chrétien. Chrétien was
a poet, and a good poet, but at the best to the world in general he
would be no more than the favoured servant and dependant of a minor
French princess. Map was a man of political importance, the trusted
companion and emissary of the most prominent monarch of the day. What
was the position held by Map in the eyes of that same public to whom
Chrétien appealed may be gathered by the anxiety which the
romance-writers showed to shelter themselves under his name. We have one
or two Arthurian poems, such as _e.g._, _Diu Krône_, which purport to be
by Chrétien; we have a whole mass of prose romance, practically the main
body of Arthurian legend in its later form, which professes to be the
work of Walter Map. Could testimony as to the relative status of the two
men in the eyes of their contemporaries be more eloquent? Is it likely
that Chrétien, even if he had held as exalted an idea of his own work as
his latter-day admirers would credit him with—and he did _not_—would
have thought it derogatory to his dignity to borrow from Map? I think
not; and if we had not a jot or a tittle of further evidence on the
subject, I should contend that, on the evidence of the poems alone, we
have strong grounds for maintaining the priority over _Cligés_ of a lost
_Lancelot_ version.
But as it happens, our case does not rest upon this evidence alone. We
have at hand an important witness; a witness to whose evidence Professor
Foerster and his followers shut their eyes and stop their ears, but who
nevertheless is slowly, but surely, winning recognition as an important
factor in the determination of such problems as those we are discussing.
Let us turn to folk-lore, and find if from the lips of popular tradition
we can gather evidence that may help to decide the question. We shall
find an answer startling in its point and clearness.
THE FOLK-TALE
The _Contes Lorrains_ of M. Cosquin[35] contains a story, _Le Petit
Berger_, in which we shall find our tournament adventure in what we may
term full fairy-tale form. A princess expresses a desire to own a flock
of sheep; her father consents, and hires a lad to guard them, of whom
the princess becomes secretly enamoured. On three successive days the
shepherd penetrates into a forbidden wood, and on each occasion slays a
terrible giant, clad in steel, silver, or golden armour. By the death of
these giants the hero becomes master of three castles, of steel, silver,
and gold, in each of which he finds a suit of armour and a steed to
correspond. He keeps the feat a profound secret, and when later on the
king proclaims a three days’ tournament, the prize of which is the hand
of the princess, he appears each day in different armour, and mounted on
the corresponding steed—steel, silver or golden—wins the tournament, and
weds the lady.
Now this is merely the shortest and simplest form of a story, which is
found practically all the world over. Let us look at some of the
variants.
In the notes to _Le Petit Berger_ M. Cosquin cites a Tyrolean variant,
where instead of three giants the hero slays three dragons, thereby
winning three castles. The armour corresponds to that of the previous
tale; but the horses are black, red, and white, herein agreeing with the
_Ipomedon_ and the _Prose Lancelot_; the compiler refers to other
versions from the same country given by Zingerle,[36] but cites no
details. In an Italian variant the horses are of crystal, silver, and
gold.
Now let us turn to another of M. Cosquin’s tales, _Jean de l’Ours_,[37]
where the main theme of the story is the release of a princess from an
Otherworld prison. Here we shall find a Greek tale given, the details of
which are, as we shall see, specially important for our investigation. A
prince delivers his sister and three stranger princesses from the prison
of a _drakos_ (translated by M. Cosquin as _sorte d’ogre_) on the summit
of a high mountain. When about to descend himself, his brother cuts the
cord and leaves him a prisoner on the mountain. In the ogre’s castle he
sees three marvellous objects: a greyhound of velvet pursuing a hare
also of velvet; a golden ewer which pours water of itself into a golden
basin; a golden hen with her chickens. He also finds three winged
horses, respectively white, red, and green, and sets them at liberty. In
gratitude they transport him to the plain, and each gives him a hair
from their tail, bidding him burn it when he needs their aid. The prince
takes service with a goldsmith in his father’s city. The eldest brother
desires to marry the eldest of the rescued princesses; she demands a
velvet greyhound pursuing a velvet hare, such as she has seen in the
ogre’s castle. The king offers a reward to any who can make such an
object. The pretended goldsmith’s apprentice undertakes to do so, and
sends the green horse to fetch the original. At the tournament in honour
of the wedding he appears on the horse in a dress to correspond, carries
off the honours of the day, and escapes unrecognised. His second brother
marries the second princess. She demands the golden ewer—the red horse
comes to his aid, and he wins the tournament in his red dress. When the
third and youngest princess is to be wedded to the king’s brother he
appears in white, on the white steed, slays the would-be bridegroom with
a cast of his javelin, reveals his identity, and wins the bride. Here we
have the three colours of the _Lanzelet_.
Again, in the variants of _Le Prince et son Cheval_, another tale of the
same collection,[38] we find the Three Days’ Tournament allied to the
rescue and escape from the Otherworld _motif_. In this latter story we
have the well-known incident of escape from a giant, or a magician, by
means of magical objects which, thrown behind the escaping pair, erect
mysterious barriers between pursuer and pursued.
In his notes to _Le Petit Berger_, M. Cosquin quotes a remark of M.
Mullenhoff, to the effect that in one variant of the story collected by
him it is combined with ‘_le conte bien connu où le héros gravit à
cheval une montagne de verre, pour conquérir la main d’une belle
princesse_.’[39] Now the glass mountain is a well-recognised form of the
Otherworld prison. Probably, too, we ought to connect with this some
variants of the tale where the feat is to attain the summit of a high
tower; a version of this is known among the Avares of the Caucasus; here
the horses are blue, red, and black.
Thus we may note two well-marked classes of the tales, in one of which
(_a_) the hero simply wins the hand of the princess at a tourney; in the
second of which (_b_) he also rescues her from the Otherworld.
But there is a third variant of our story, in which the feat differs
somewhat from _b_. The hero is again a rescuer, but this time he rescues
the princess from death at the jaws of a monster, generally a dragon.
This we may call class _c_. In the notes to _Leopold_,[40] M. Cosquin
refers to a German variant where the combat lasts for three days, and
horses and armour are black, red, and white. In this connection, as
member of class _c_, Mr. Hartland has studied the story in his
well-known _Legend of Perseus_,[41] and some of the variants he gives we
shall find of interest to us.
In an Irish version, _The Thirteenth Son of the King of Erin_,[42] the
hero, who has previously slain three giants, and taken possession of
their castles and wealth, comprising three steeds, black, brown, and
red, rescues the king’s daughter from a great monster, a serpent of the
sea, ‘which must get a king’s daughter to devour every seven years.’ The
combat lasts three days; but though the hero appears each day in a
different dress, only on the first does it correspond with the colour of
his horse. Here the tournament incident is lacking.
A very good example, this time hailing from the Odenwald, contains the
conquest of the giants (eight), the three days’ fight with the dragon,
and the Three Days’ Tournament. Here the hero is a king’s son, who,
seeing the portrait of the princess, falls in love with her and dares
the adventure from which his father shrinks.[43] This tale, as Mr.
Hartland points out, apparently bears traces of literary influence, and
it certainly recalls the _données_ of the _Ipomedon_ where the hero,
also a king’s son, is attracted by the fame of _La Fière’s_ beauty,
before he sees her.
In a gipsy variant from Transylvania, also given by Mr. Hartland, the
princess has been carried off by a dragon to the glass mountain (thus
apparently combining _b_ and _c_); and the horse—there is but one—has
the mysterious property of appearing red in the morning, white at noon,
and black at night.
It must be borne in mind that the legend which Mr. Hartland was engaged
in studying was, before all else, a rescue legend—the rescue of
Andromeda—consequently the variants of our tale, collected by him, are
practically confined to what we have designated as class _c_, where the
feat performed by the hero is the rescue of the princess from a monster.
This particular feature he carries back, in insular tradition, to the
old Irish story of Cuchullin’s rescue of Deborghill from the Fomori;
sea-robbers, whose real character and origin are doubtful. The hero
hears sounds of wailing, and finds the maiden, the daughter of the King
of the Isles, exposed upon the seashore. He confronts the Fomori, three
in number, and slays them one after the other. Thus the triple combat is
preserved, but it appears evident that, even at this early date, the
story had been modified in the interests of romantic saga.[44] With this
(class _c_) form of the story we frequently find combined what is known
as _The False Claimant_ ‘motif.’ The hero disappears after the rescue,
having either left behind him some proof of his identity, such as,
_e.g._, the binding of the heads of the monster on a withy in such a
manner that none but himself can unloose them; or having in his
possession such a proof as, _e.g._ the tongues of the severed heads, or
the handkerchief, ring, or ear-ring of the princess. By means of this
proof he confutes the cowardly rival who claims to have achieved the
feat. This particular form of the story is perhaps, on the whole, the
one in which it is best known. There is one group which, as we shall
see, is of extraordinary interest and importance for the special study
in which we are engaged.
In his _Popular Tales of the West Highlands_, under the title of the
_Sea Maiden_, Mr. Campbell gives the following story.[45] An old and
childless fisherman meets with persistent ill-luck in his calling, till
one day a sea-maiden rises from the waves and promises him future
success, if he in return will give her his firstborn son (assuring him
of the birth of three). The fisher consents, and all falls out as the
maiden foretells. Grown to manhood, the son, aware of the fate in store
for him, resolves to go ‘where there is not a drop of sea-water.’ He
sets out, and on his journey finds a lion, a wolf, and a falcon
disputing over the carcase of a horse. He divides the spoil between
them, and in return they promise him their aid, should he be in need of
it. He becomes herdsman to a king, and we have the adventure with the
three giants, in which the grateful beasts aid him, and he wins a white,
a red, and a green filly ‘that will go through the skies’—obviously the
winged horses of the Greek folk-tale[46]—and three dresses to
correspond. Here he also slays the giants’ mother, and wins a comb and a
basin, the use of which will make him the most beautiful man on earth.
Follows the adventure with the sea-monster, a dragon apparently. The
fight lasts for three days, and he appears each day in a different
dress, and mounted on a different steed. The princess makes a mark on
his forehead as he sleeps, and thus identifies the hero as her rescuer.
They marry, but while walking by the seashore, the sea-maiden rises from
the waves and carries off the hero as her property. The princess, by the
advice of a soothsayer, succeeds in releasing her husband, and with the
help of the grateful beasts, destroys the soul of the sea-maiden, which
is in an egg. She being slain, the pair live happily ever after.
In this particular variant there is no _False Claimant_; but he appears
in version number three of this story, and in version four we have the
curious detail that the beast ‘was a fresh-water lake when he had killed
her.’
Students of folk-lore will note that the tale in this form includes
features not found in the majority of the versions, but representing
well-recognised folk-tale _formulæ_. Thus the _Life Token_ is
here—incomplete—the maiden gives the fisherman ‘something’ to be given
to his wife, his horse, and his dog (obviously a _fisherman_ does not
need a horse and a dog—these two features do not belong to each other);
the wife has three sons, the horse three foals, and the dog three pups.
Horse and dog ought rightly to play a part in the story, but in this
special variant they do not appear, though in another they are mentioned
in a subordinate rôle. The _Grateful Beasts_ and the _External Soul_ are
equally well known in folk-tale, though again, as a rule, in a different
connection. But the tournament is lacking; and after examining many
variants of the tale, I have come to the conclusion that this feature
belongs exclusively to the continental versions. Horses and dresses are
found in the insular forms, but, so far, I have not found a single
instance of the tournament. On the other hand, no continental variant
appears to contain the sea-maiden episodes.
If we now summarise the leading incidents of the various groups, we
shall find them somewhat as follows:—
1. Hero—King’s son. Herdsman or shepherd. Fisherman’s son turned
herdsman.
2. Slays three giants and wins three castles in which he finds three
steeds of different colours with dresses or armour to correspond. The
horses are occasionally winged.
3. Appears at a Three Days’ Tournament in these dresses, and thus wins
the hand of a princess.
(Incidents 1, 2, 3, which combined correspond to _Le Petit Berger_,
form the shortest version of our story, but probably not the most
primitive.)
4. Rescues the princess from an ‘Otherworld’ prison. Form of
imprisonment varies, but the ‘rescue’ is most generally found in
company with the tournament.
5. Rescues princess from a monster. Here the conflict generally lasts
three days, the three disguises are employed, and the tournament is
often absent.
6. Is robbed of the credit of his deed by a cowardly rival. This,
which is most generally found in combination with 5, is also sometimes
found in a modified form combined with 4, and is often lacking
altogether.
7. Is carried off by a mermaid, to whom he had been promised before
his birth. This appears to be confined to the Celtic group collected
by Mr. Campbell.
If the reader will refer to the various examples I have given above, he
will see that these seven incidents represent what we may call the
perfect skeleton of our story (to use a simile often applied by Mr.
Campbell), though the bones are differently placed in different
versions.
But, having summarised them, we also become aware of a very curious
coincidence. Out of these seven incidents, six are found, and found more
than once, in the earlier forms of the _Lancelot_ story. Thus dropping
out incident 2, the winning of the armour, to which I know no good
parallel, we find that Lancelot was a king’s son (incident 1), which, in
itself, of course counts for little, but is of value in combination with
other features (_Lanzelet_—_Prose Lancelot_); that he appears at a
tournament, three days running, in different armour, the colours of
which correspond with the prevailing colours of the folk-tale—green,
red, white, or black, red, white (incident 3) (_Lanzelet_—_Prose
Lancelot_); that he frees a princess (queen) from an Otherworld prison
(incident 4) (_Charrette_—_Prose Lancelot_—_Lanzelet_, modified form);
that he slays a monster (apparently a dragon), and is robbed by a
cowardly rival (incidents 5 and 6) (_Morien_). A second version of the
_False Claimant_ story is found in _Le cerf au pied blanc_. Finally,
when a child, he was carried off by a water maiden, _meer-wîb_ (incident
7) (_Lanzelet_—_Prose Lancelot_).
Now these are characteristics which, in their _ensemble_, he shares with
no other Arthurian hero. True, Gawain visits the Otherworld, but he does
so rather in the character of lover of the queen of that world than as
rescuer of one confined within its precincts. In the Dutch _Walewein_
alone, so far as I know, is his rôle definitely that of the deliverer.
But none of the other incidents belong to his story. So, too, Tristan is
the hero of a very fine version of the _Dragon Slayer_ and _False
Claimant_ story, and it is moreover probable that the _Morien_ version
has borrowed certain details from the _Tristan_, but he too can claim no
share in the other incidents. The close correspondence, point by point,
with a folk-tale of so widespread and representative a character, is, I
submit, a peculiarity of the earlier _Lancelot_ story, which is of
extraordinary interest as throwing light upon the genesis and growth of
Arthurian legend.
In this connection I have by no means forgotten the energetic protests
which, in certain quarters, were evoked by Mr. Nutt’s attempt to show
that the story of _Perceval_ might in this way be connected with popular
tales; and I am quite prepared to be told that tales collected in the
nineteenth century are not to be trusted as indications of the sources
of twelfth century romance. But in the instance before us the evidence,
while of precisely the same nature as in the case of _Perceval_, exceeds
it, both in bulk and extent. The story is not one story, but a large and
well-marked group of tales; the folk-lore parallels affect not one, but
many incidents of the romance. How large and how widely diffused is that
story-group can only be appreciated by those who will examine the lists
of variants appended by M. Cosquin to the four stories I have named
above and those cited by Mr. Campbell under the heading of the _Sea
Maiden_, and then compare these stories with the numerous examples given
by Mr. Hartland in his exhaustive study of the _Perseus_ legend. The
incidents are, as I have shown, six out of a possible list of seven. If,
further, we remember that the group, with all its varying forms, is
connected with such pre-historic heroes as Perseus and Cuchullin, we
have, I think, a sufficient answer to those critics who would reject the
evidence _en masse_ on the ground of modernity.
But supposing, for the sake of argument, that we accept the possible
priority of the romantic over the popular form, what, with regard to the
criticism of the Arthurian literary cycle, is the logical result? This:
if the folk-tale be dependent upon a romance, that romance must of
necessity be the _Lancelot_, as no other hero offers the same
combination of incident. But a version of the _Lancelot_ story, from
which _all_ these incidents could have been borrowed, must have been
older than any form of the story we now possess. As we have seen above,
the correspondence is sometimes with one, sometimes with another
version; and a very famous incident of the tale, the _False Claimant_,
only exists now in two romances, each of them preserved in an isolated
and unique form. Therefore, if this be not a fully proven instance of
the conversion of a popular folk-tale into an Arthurian romance, it must
be a case of the development of a folk-tale from a fully organised and
coherent _Lancelot_ story in a form anterior to Chrétien. The adherents
of the theory which ascribes independent invention to Chrétien de
Troyes, and a literary origin to the Arthurian stories, can make their
choice between these two solutions of the problem—one or the other it
must be.
For myself, I unreservedly accept the verdict pronounced by Mr. Campbell
upon the _Sea Maiden_ as representative of the entire story-group. ‘Is
it possible that a Minglay peasant and Straparola[47] (_or we may add
Hue de Rotelande and the peasants of the Odenwald and Lorraine_)—neither
of whom can have seen a giant, or a flying horse, or a dragon, or a
mermaid—could separately imagine all these impossible things, and,
having imagined them simultaneously, invent the incidents of the story
and arrange so many of them in the same order?
‘Is it on the other hand possible that all these barefooted, bareheaded,
simple men, who cannot read, should yet learn the contents of one class
of rare books and of no other? I cannot think so.
‘I have gone through the whole _Sea Maiden_ story, and all its Gaelic
versions, and marked and numbered each separate incident, and divided
the whole into its parts, and then set the result beside the fruit of a
similar dissection of Straparola’s _Fortunio_, and I find nearly the
whole of the bones of the Italian story, and a great many bones which
seem to belong to some original antediluvian Aryan tale. The Scotch
(_insular_) is far wilder and more mythical than the Italian
(_continental_).[48] The one savours of tournaments, kings’ palaces, and
the manners of Italy long ago; the other of flocks and herds, fishermen
and pastoral life; but the Highland imaginary beings are further from
reality and nearer to creatures of the brain. The horses of Straparola
are very material and walk the earth; those of old John MacPhie are
closely related to Pegasus and the horses of the Veda, and fly and soar
through grimy peat-reek to the clouds.’[49]
Mr. Campbell continues: ‘What is true of the Gaelic and Italian versions
is equally true of all others which I know. If examined, they will be
found to consist of a bare tree of branching incidents common to all,
and so elaborate that no minds could possibly have invented the whole
seven or eight times over[50] without some common model, and yet no one
of these is the model, for the tree is defective in all, and its foliage
has something peculiar to each country in which it grows. They are
specimens of the same plant, but their common stock is nowhere to be
found.’[51] Were Mr. Campbell living now, may we not feel sure that to
these closing words he would add: _Assuredly it is not to be sought in
an Arthurian romance of the twelfth century_?
THE ROMANCE
So much for the present as regards our folk-tale as a whole. Let us now
see what light the study of it may have thrown upon the special subject
of our investigation—the Three Days’ Tournament. And first of all, I
think it has definitely settled the correctness of our title. East or
west, north or south, wherever we have traced our story, whatever the
hero’s feat—whether the rescuing the princess from a devouring dragon,
or the winning her hand at a knightly tournament—the days required to
complete the task are _three_—neither more nor less.
Mr. Hartland, to whom I referred the point, remarks that the unvarying
tendency in certain families of folk-tales, notably those of Oriental
origin, is to crystallise a small but indefinite number into _three_.
Now Mr. Campbell, as we have seen, detects a likeness between the flying
horses of the _Sea Maiden_ tales, and the horses of the Veda, and Mr.
Joseph Jacobs, in a note appended to another tale,[52] quotes a further
remark of the same writer, to the effect that the many-coloured horses
of Indian mythology may account for all the magical horses of
folk-tales. So if our tale, as a whole, did not come from the east, it
seems possible that this particular incident may have done so.[53]
Yet in so far as the tournament form is concerned, it is, of course,
_possible_ that certain literary versions of the story might have been
affected by the ordinary customs of the day. Anyway there seems to be a
fairly close correspondence here between fact and fancy. Niedner, in his
work on _Das Deutsche Turnier_,[54] remarks that the tourney proper was
generally held on a Monday; the knights assembled on the previous
Saturday; Sunday morning was spent in mustering those present and
arranging the opposing factions; while the afternoon was devoted to the
encounter known as the _Vesper-spiel_, preliminary to the grand struggle
of the morrow. Thus the ordinary duration of such a meeting might be
reckoned as three days.
But it is clear that there might also be three distinct encounters on as
many separate days, as in the folk-tale. Professor Kittredge, in his
article, ‘Who was Sir Thomas Malory?[55]’ notes a very remarkable and
pertinent instance taken from the life of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of
Warwick. When that nobleman was Governor of Calais, hearing of a great
gathering of knights, to be held in the neighbourhood, ‘he cast in his
mynde to do sume newe poynt of chevalry’; and under the several names of
_The Grene Knight_, _Chevalier Vert_, and _Chevalier Attendant_, sent
three challenges to the French king’s court. These being accepted, he
appeared the first two days in differing armour, the third ‘in face
opyn,’ on each occasion overthrowing his antagonist.[56] The days in
question are given by Rous as January 6th, 7th, and 8th; the year he
does not mention; but Professor Kittredge, by a process of elimination,
arrives at the conclusion that it must have been either 1416 or 1417. It
is, of course, obvious that this feat must have been suggested by the
romances. It is, I think, equally obvious that the three days of the
romances were not at variance with actual practice. As to the version of
the folk-tale there can be no question. The correct number is
three—neither more nor less.
It is, of course, also clear that the occurrence of the tournament in
the folk-tale must be subsequent to the institution of tournaments as
part of the ordinary chivalric and social conditions; but the tale
itself must be earlier, as is witnessed both by the archaic nature of
the rescue incident and the magical nature of the horses. Trials of
skill in horsemanship are known to all stages of society; and the
original form of this special incident was doubtless something of this
kind. In the Odenwald variant referred to above, the hero has to perform
the feat of carrying off on his spear a ring suspended from a beam, and
to hang it up again in returning. This is here supposed to form part of
the tournament; but it seems most likely that in earlier forms the trial
of skill by which the hero was tested and identified was simply some
such feat of skilled horsemanship.
Nor do I think that we are to see the influence of romance, rather than
of custom, in this transformation. Neither of the poems in which the
incident approximates most closely to the folk-tale form, the _Lanzelet_
and the _Ipomedon_, appear to have been particularly popular (certainly
not the former), judging from the number of manuscripts in which they
have been preserved, while the ‘Tournament’ form of the folk-tale is
found all over Europe. It is much more reasonable, surely, to conclude
that the episode has been borrowed, as so many others have been
borrowed, from the stores of popular tradition than to hold that in this
case popular tradition has been modified by the influences of a literary
cycle.
But is it not as clear as daylight that all this immense body of
evidence absolutely and finally disposes of any claim on the part of
Chrétien to be first in the field? The _four_ days of _Cligés_ rule that
romance, as a source, out of court at once and for ever. Further, not
only is that version demonstrably secondary in itself, but definitely
secondary to and dependent upon the _Lancelot_ versions. These
correspond with the prevailing colours of the folk-tale—black, red, and
white, or green, red, and white.[57] The one is the version of the
_Prose Lancelot_, the other of the _Lanzelet_. Chrétien not only gives
one day too many, but manifestly does so in order to combine the two
versions which he, in common with us, knew, and gives _both_ green and
black—two colours which are found together in no single version of all
the dozens I have read.
There is a possible ‘clerical’ explanation of the existence of two
versions of the _Lancelot_ tale. _Noir_ in the manuscript may have been
read _vair_, and a copyist writing from oral dictation may thus have
substituted _vert_. But in the face of the green, red, and white of the
very primitive Celtic variant given by Mr. Campbell, and confirmed by
the Greek parallel, I think it more likely that the three colours of the
_Lanzelet_ represent the older form. But inasmuch as in romances, which,
like the Arthurian, were supposed to correspond in some measure to the
conditions of real life, a green _horse_ would be an impossibility,
while yet horse and armour should correspond, black—perhaps under the
influence of the _Perceval_ story—would take its place. Both were
represented in the folk-tale, and it may be that the version of the
_Prose Lancelot_ and of the _Ipomedon_ simply represents ‘the survival
of the fittest.’
That there were _two_ versions a closer study will, I think, make
evident. Probably those who have followed the argument and illustrations
closely will have already detected what hitherto I have left unnoted,
that the version of the _Ipomedon_ stands in a much closer relation with
certain forms of the folk-tale, _i.e._ the _Petit Berger_ or _a_ group,
than is the case with either the _Cligés_ or the two _Lancelot_
versions. In the _Ipomedon_ alone the prize of the Three Days’
Tournament is the hand of the princess. And not only is there agreement
in this, the leading, feature, but there is also a curious
correspondence in minor details. Thus, both in the poem and in the
folk-tale, the hero, in the character of a servant, has already won the
princess’s love. In both she is bitterly disappointed at his apparent
failure to compete. In the folk-tale she sends each evening to ask why
the shepherd-lad has taken no part in the tourney, receiving each time
the answer that he was unwell, but would do his best to appear on the
morrow. In the poem, each evening Ipomedon sends word to the princess
that it is he who has gained the tourney, but that he is leaving the
country immediately, and will not be present on the next day. Thus the
heroine, in each case, is kept in uncertainty as to the intentions of
her lover.
If we add to this the correspondence with the Odenwald variant already
pointed out,[58] and the fact that in the _Ipomedon_ alone the hero is
wounded on the third day—a feature found not only in the Odenwald story
but in several variants of _Le Prince et son Cheval_—it becomes clear
that if there be a doubt as to the source of the _Cligés_ or the
_Lanzelet_, the _Ipomedon_ version must repose, directly or indirectly,
upon the folk-tale.
But, as we have seen, it is precisely the evidence of the _Ipomedon_
which leads us to connect the story with Walter Map, and the romance
ascribed to him, the _Lancelot_. What, then, are we to conclude? I think
the only satisfactory interpretation is that which I have suggested
above, that there were two versions of the story; in one of which the
hero was represented as winning, and probably wedding, the princess; in
the other the incident, whatever its original form, had already been so
far modified as simply to provide an effective setting for his first
appearance at Arthur’s court. This is indeed what we find in the
_Lanzelet_; and the general tone of that poem, wherein the hero wins the
hand of no fewer than four ladies, and certainly weds three of them,
shows that there would be no initial improbability in postulating
another and more primitive form of the story.
To return to _Cligés_. The _dramatis personæ_ of the tournament episode
should be considered. The hero of the adventure does not compete with
any number of knights, but is each day confronted with a chosen
champion. These are, as I have already shown, Segramor, Lancelot,
Perceval, and Gawain; and so far as the first three are concerned they
appear here, and here only, their names, even, being otherwise
unmentioned throughout the six thousand seven hundred and eighty lines
of the poem.
To any one thoroughly familiar with the Arthurian romances, the
juxtaposition of these three names is extremely significant. The
adventure itself is elsewhere assigned to Lancelot. The hero with whom
the _Lancelot_ story in its earlier stages is most closely associated is
Perceval; Chrétien himself here introduces Perceval as a famous knight,
with whose renown Cligés was already familiar, and ranks him above
Lancelot. One of the best-known adventures ascribed to Perceval is, as
we have already shown, one in which the three colours, black, red, and
white, figure, and in which he overthrows Kay in a manner curiously akin
to other versions of the tournament episode. But previous to
overthrowing Kay he had vanquished Segramor, who was the first to attack
him. Is it not evident that Chrétien, like the authors of the _Ipomedon_
and the original _Lanzelet_, was here reminded of the blood-drops
adventure? If it be asked why introduce Segramor instead of Kay, we may
recall the fact that while Cligés is represented as nephew to the
Emperor of Constantinople, Segramor, as the _Merlin_ tells us, was son
to that potentate. Chrétien _may_ have introduced him as less known in
connection with this than Kay, who is never once named in _Cligés_; but
I think it more likely that it was his parallelism to the hero, as well
as his connection with Perceval, which determined his appearance.
But with regard to the latter, there is another point which deserves
mention. In that section of the _Peredur_ which does not correspond to
any section of the _Conte del Graal_ we find the hero, released from
prison by the daughter of his jailer, attending a warlike tournament, in
which each day he carries off the prizes; but there is no change of
armour, and the days appear to be four instead of three. Previously to
this he has also appeared three successive days at a tournament; but
overcome by the beauty of the empress, of whom he is enamoured, he
remains gazing at her, instead of taking part in the contest, until the
third and final day. These passages are deserving of note, as they
appear to me to show direct contact between the _Perceval_ and
_Lancelot_ stories, and in this instance the borrowing appears to be on
the part of the earlier story. Not only is Lancelot released from the
prison of the Lady of Malehault to attend a tournament, thus
corresponding with the one instance, but when he arrives on the spot he
behaves in precisely the same manner at the sight of Guinevere as is
recorded of Peredur with the empress. I do not feel able to accept the
tournament as a real part of the _Perceval_ story, no other feature of
any version of the Perceval ‘_Enfances_’ corresponding with the
_formulæ_ of the group in question; yet the correspondence of detail
between the two stories is so undeniable that contact of some sort,
direct or indirect, there must be, and I think in this case we must hold
that the _Peredur_ has been influenced by a version of the _Lancelot_
akin to that preserved in the prose redaction.
To return to _Cligés_. Taking into consideration all the evidence, the
importance and widespread character of the folk-tale, the closer
correspondence of both the _Ipomedon_ and the _Lanzelet_ to the popular
form, and the peculiarities of the _Cligés_ version, it becomes, I
think, impossible to doubt that this latter, so far from being the
_source_ of the _Lanzelet_, is, as submitted above, not merely posterior
to, but distinctly dependent upon a form of that story. And if we admit
this, must we not also admit that here, at least, Chrétien did _not_
understand the character of the material with which he was dealing, and
that in this instance he certainly deserves the epithet which Professor
Foerster asserts we would wish to apply to him, that of _ein
verschlechternder Ueberarbeiter_? The phrase, be it remembered, is
Professor Foerster’s, and not mine; but so admirably does it suit the
present question, that I can only say, ‘_I thank thee, friend, for
teaching me this word!_’ Chrétien was _not_ dealing directly with
popular tradition, but taking it at second-hand after it had already
been modified and worked over in romantic form. To put it tersely, in
the Three Days’ Tournament we have a folk-tale theme intelligently
adapted by the authors of the _Ipomedon_ and the _Lanzelet_, and
misunderstood and ‘muddled’ by Chrétien.
THE BEARING ON THE LANCELOT STORY
But the interesting problems connected with this episode are not all
solved when we have determined the ultimate source of the story, and the
position to be assigned to Chrétien’s version. As we have seen, there is
strong ground for believing that the French poet knew two versions of
the _Lancelot_ story; is it not possible that one of these versions may
have been the lost French source of the _Lanzelet_? The ‘setting’ of the
_Cligés_ tournament, in which the hero makes his first appearance at
Arthur’s court, corresponds with that of the _Lanzelet_; and, as we have
remarked above, in the _Erec_ we find not only the name of Lancelot, but
also that of the enchanter Mauduiz, who appears nowhere save in U. von
Zatzikhoven’s poem. Professor Foerster’s opinion is that we must
consider the German _Lanzelet_ as ‘_die möglichst getreue Wiedergabe
eines französischen Originals_’; and on this point at least, I, for one,
am quite prepared to agree with him. Whether, after a real study of that
poem (with which I strongly suspect he had only a superficial
familiarity), the learned professor will desire to maintain his opinion
is another question! But, granting that the German version correctly
reproduces the French original, the nature of the work—a loosely
connected collection of independent tales, of marked folk-lore
character—points to a period of evolution anterior to Chrétien’s
well-knit and elaborately polished literary productions.
Then, again, there arises the question, Granting the existence of a
_Lancelot_ romance previous to Chrétien, could Walter Map have been the
author? On this point it is not easy, with the material at our disposal,
to express a decided opinion. Map and Chrétien were certainly
contemporaries, but in neither case do we know the date of birth. Map
died in 1209, therefore we may suppose he was not born long before 1140;
a later date is scarcely probable, as he was a student at Paris in 1154,
and at the court of Henry II. before 1162.[59] We do not know when
Chrétien wrote the _Erec_, but it was almost certainly some time in the
decade 1150-60. That Map should have been the author of a _Lancelot_
poem earlier than the _Erec_ is quite possible, but, perhaps, not very
probable; but there would have been ample time for him to write one
before the _Cligés_. Thus, while I think it highly probable that
Chrétien borrowed from Map in the latter poem, I would reserve my
opinion as to the former. Of the probable character of such a work we
can gather some idea from Map’s undoubted literary remains; _De Nugis
Curialium_ offers abundant proof of the writer’s taste for popular tales
and traditions. Had he lived in the nineteenth-twentieth centuries,
instead of the twelfth-thirteenth, Map would undoubtedly have been a
prominent member of the Folk-Lore Society.[60] His _Lancelot_ poem might
have been a short episodic romance of folk-tale character, a Three Days’
Tournament story, or it might have been a collection of such episodes,
like the _Lanzelet_, _i.e._ its character would probably be _popular_
rather than _literary_. I should myself have felt inclined to decide for
the _Lanzelet_ source, were it not for the evidence of the _Ipomedon_,
which appears to presuppose a version closer to the original folk-tale.
Another point to be borne in mind in connection with the _Cligés_, and
one to which I have already drawn attention,[61] is the peculiar
geography of the poem, which is distinctly Anglo-Norman rather than
Arthurian; the tale is obviously composed of originally independent
themes; and whatever may have been contained in the book of the Beauvais
Library, I think it is at the least possible that part of Chretien’s
material came to him from insular sources.
As regards the _Lanzelet_, we know that the source of that poem came
from England, and elsewhere[62] I have pointed out that a curious
allusion to England (_not_ as is more usual to _Britain_) seems to make
it probable that the French original was written in this island. If we
couple with this the authorship and evidence of the _Ipomedon_, and the
persistent attribution of a _Lancelot_ romance to Walter Map, we have, I
think, a strong presumption in favour of an early _insular_ version of
that story.
While this study was in the printer’s hands I came across the following
allusion to the slaying of a dragon by Lancelot; it occurs in the
Auchinleck Manuscript version of _Sir Bevis of Hampton_ (_Cxxx_):—
‘_After Josianis cristing_
_Beves dede a gret fighting—_
_Swich bataile ded never non_
_Cristene man of flesch and bon—_
_Of a dragoun thar beside,_
_That Beves slough ther in that tide;_
_Save Sire Lancelet de Lake_
_He faught with a furdrake_ [fiery dragon],
_And Wade dede also_
_And never knightes boute thai to._’[63]
This allusion is the more interesting as, saving in the case of
_Morien_, to which I have already referred, I have nowhere found this
special feat attributed to Lancelot; certainly it does not occur in the
whole extent of the _Prose Lancelot_, nor is it ever alluded to in that
romance. Yet, if my theory of the evolution of the Lancelot legend be
correct, such a combat ought certainly, at one time, to have formed part
of his story. The evidence of this Anglo-Norman romance, supported as it
is by the independent testimony of _Morien_, is therefore especially
welcome; I am inclined to think that it strongly increases the
probability of a definitely _insular_ version of the story, differing in
some respects from the _continental_, having existed at the time the
‘_Sir Bevis_’ was written.
Nor would the existence of such a version be, as Professor Foerster
asserts, incompatible with the continental _origin_ of the
character;[64] to assert as much is really to stultify his own
arguments. Does not the whole system of Professor Foerster rest upon the
hypothesis that the character of Arthur, indisputably of insular
_origin_, underwent development upon continental ground? The fact that
what he roundly denies of Arthur he asserts emphatically as natural for
Lancelot throws a flood of light upon the _ex parte_ character of this
distinguished scholar’s methods!
If we take into consideration the character of the elements composing
the early _Lancelot_ story, a character which, be it remembered, is not
a question of suggestion but a matter of proof, we shall become clearly
aware that the material for development existed on both sides of the
Channel. I believe myself that Lancelot was of continental origin, but I
recognise clearly that if the source and development of his story were
such as I suppose them to have been, that continental origin was a
matter of accident, not of necessity; and if some other scholar should
bring forward arguments to prove that the story had its rise on insular
rather than on continental ground, I shall be quite prepared to
reconsider the question.
So far as the evidence I have now collected is concerned, it looks as if
the development of the early _Lancelot_ story might thus be sketched:—
_a._ _Lai_ (presumably Breton), relating theft of king’s son by
water-fairy, amplified by
_b._ Bringing up of youth in Otherworld kingdom, peopled by women only
(source, general Celtic tradition, possibly _Gawain_ legend).
_c._ His entry into the world (_Perceval_ legend).
_d._ Introduction of adventures of _Sea Maiden_ story, _a_ being the
point of contact, and suggesting the development, which may have been
as follows:—
_d^a._ Winning of magic steeds and armour.
_d^b._ { Rescue of princess from monster, and _False Claimant_ story;
or
_d^c._ { Rescue of princess from Otherworld. As we have seen (p. 25),
it would be quite possible for these to be combined.
_d^d._ Appearance at Three Days’ Tournament.
It would seem not improbable that it was the independent existence of
incident _d^c_ in the popular tale that led to its coalescing with the
Arthurian legend. As I have elsewhere pointed out,[65] the character of
the Guinevere abduction story is in itself so primitive that it may well
have formed part of the earliest stratum of Arthurian tradition. The
variants are of such a nature as to indicate that they arose at a period
when the real meaning of the story was still understood, and carefully
retained. The tale must therefore be far older than any extant
_literary_ version.
If we admit the suggested hypothesis—that the hero of the Lancelot _lai_
became through the ‘mermaid’ incident identified with the hero of the
_Sea Maiden_ story—the character of that story, and the immense
popularity to which its wide diffusion testifies, would give us a solid
working hypothesis to account for the choice of Lancelot as Guinevere’s
lover. The similarity of the stories led to his identification with her
rescuer, and that step once taken the recognition of him as her lover
was—given the social conditions of the time and the popularity of the
_Tristan_ story—a foregone conclusion.[66]
But this evolution, so far as we can tell, took place on _both_ sides of
the Channel. Thus, while I have found no single _insular_ version which
gives the Tournament episode, I have equally found no _continental_
variant which contains the mermaid. Yet it is the latter (mermaid) which
appears to form the point of contact between the folk-tale and the
_lai_, while it is the persistent recurrence of the former (the
Tournament) which has given us the key to disentangle the complicated
evolution of the story.
Here is a point on which I should wish to make my position perfectly
clear. I do not think that Lancelot was _ab origine_ the hero of a
variant of this popular and widely-spread folk-tale. The persistent
element in the _Lancelot_ story is, as I have elsewhere shown, his
connection with the beneficent Lady of the Lake. Now the maiden of the
folk-tale is a sea, not a lake, maiden, and is, further, consistently
represented as of a malicious, rather than a kindly, character. True,
she aids the fisher in the first instance, but she belongs to that order
of beings whose gifts, apparently desirable, are saddled with conditions
which turn to the undoing, rather than to the profit of the receiver.
Also, her presence in the story is restricted to a small and well-marked
group of variants, which apparently preserve a primitive type of the
story, and are never combined with the Tournament, which recurs so
frequently in the _Lancelot_ romances.
Again this folk-tale, _quâ_ folk-tale, does not belong to the same group
as that which offers parallels to the _Perceval_ story; yet the
_Lancelot_ story was certainly affected, and that at an early stage of
development, by the _Perceval_. Folk-lore students are well aware of the
facility with which one story-type can become contaminated by another
originally distinct from it; and while I see in the common ‘folk-tale’
origin of the two legends a satisfactory explanation of the undeniable
influence traceable through all the earlier stages of the _Lancelot_
evolution, I would yet distinguish sharply between the two heroes.
Perceval is a British (insular) Celt; Lancelot a continental (Breton)
Celt, the development of whose story is posterior to that of the insular
hero. For all these reasons I think it most probable that Lancelot was
the hero of an independent, and originally short, tale, which by an
accidental similarity of incident became connected with one of the most
popular of known folk-tales, from which it freely borrowed adventures,
and which, through the medium of one of these adventures, became later
incorporated with the Arthurian tradition and developed upon romantic
lines.
EVIDENCE FOR AN INSULAR VERSION OF THE ROMANCE
The whole character of the earlier _Lancelot_ story is strongly
reminiscent of a _lai_, and I see no reason to depart from the opinion
expressed in my _Lancelot_ ‘Studies,’ that the root of the whole
wonderful growth is to be sought in such a _lai_.
Nor do I see reason to doubt that this _lai_ may have been of
continental origin, and at the same time have taken this most important
step in development upon insular ground. I cannot agree with those
scholars who appear to regard the Channel as an impassable barrier to
communication previous to the date of Chrétien de Troyes, and the most
facile medium of intercourse immediately after that date!
For more than a century previous, _i.e._ from the days of Edward the
Confessor, intercourse between the English court and the north of France
had been frequent and continuous; for nearly a century the kings of
England had also been princes of France. When, therefore, we find, as we
do, that the materials for the development of a story existed on both
sides of the Channel, and that the story, in its completed form, is akin
to both continental and insular variants, forming, as it were, a link
between the two, and combining forms which are not known to meet
elsewhere, the conclusion that the process of evolution was not confined
to one country appears neither illogical nor unfounded.
I would, therefore, now suggest that we have solid grounds for supposing
that the story of Lancelot, starting as a Breton _lai_, and brought in
that form to England, became in these islands connected with a special
variant of a very widely diffused folk-tale. Having borrowed from this
tale certain adventures, it found its way back, in this enlarged form,
to the Continent, where the story from which it had borrowed being
equally well known, it underwent further development on the same lines.
I suspect that here the flying horses of the Celtic tale became
transformed into the normal steeds of the Three Days’ Tournament, though
the colour of the armour—green, red, and white—was at first retained.
But on which side of the Channel was the final and most important step,
the incorporation with the Arthurian cycle, taken? Of the various
versions of Guinevere’s abduction, the Melwas story exists only in an
insular text, the _Vita Gildæ_, and this is apparently connected with a
partly lost and entirely confused Welsh tradition. The Meleagant version
is by locality directly connected with Melwas; and the only extant
version of the Falerîn abduction tale came from England. I submit that
here again we have reasonable ground for the hypothesis that the
identification of Lancelot as Guinevere’s rescuer, and subsequently as
her lover, may be due to insular rather than continental development.
The question is, as will be seen, by no means an easy one, and I should
prefer to express no definite opinion as to the real bearing of the
evidence here adduced. There are, as I have shown, indications pointing
in opposite directions. The precise value and relation of these
indications will be better realised as we become more familiar with what
is at present a somewhat novel interpretation of the facts. In any case
it will be seen that the theory here advanced only affects the earlier
stages of the _Lancelot_ story, leaving untouched the question of its
development as part of the Arthurian romantic cycle. It affords us a
working hypothesis which may enable us to bridge the gulf between
Lancelot the independent hero (_Lanzelet_) and Lancelot the queen’s
lover (_Charrette_), a gulf which has hitherto presented a problem
baffling to the Arthurian student.
But is it not also apparent that, in the light of the evidence here
collected, the theory of an Anglo-Norman Arthurian tradition,
independent of, and anterior to, Chrétien’s poems should no longer be
contemptuously derided? Whatever may be the eventual verdict on the
evolution of the _Lancelot_ story, the examination of the various
romantic versions of the Tournament story, in the light of folk-lore
evidence, has, I think, made absolutely clear to any unprejudiced critic
that the _Cligés_ version cannot possibly be the source of either the
_Lanzelet_ or the _Ipomedon_, but represents a version further removed
from the original form, and in all probability dependent upon some
variant, or variants, of the _Lancelot_. And if this be the case in one
poem, and that the very poem in which the admirers of Chrétien assert
roundly that his independence is most clearly shown, are we not
justified in our hesitation as regards his other works?
In my _Lancelot_ ‘Studies’ I showed that Professor Foerster’s theory as
to the origin of the _Yvain_ would not bear the test of strict
examination; that evidence, both internal and external, could be adduced
in favour of the view that the tale was but a collection of _lais_, put
together and worked over by others before Chrétien gave the final touch
which converted them into a literary whole. Before long I hope to show,
what I have recently recognised as a fact capable of demonstration, that
the _Perceval_ ‘_Enfances_,’ so far from being the source of the other
versions, is but an incomplete and inferior version of a story, which in
its original and perfect form no longer exists, but is better preserved
elsewhere. _Erec_, so far, I have not examined, but I have little doubt
that the result of careful investigation will here be the same; certain
it is that the initial adventure, the chase of a fairy stag, represents
a superstition alive in these islands to this day. The trackers on
Dartmoor claim to be able to distinguish the ‘slot’ of the fairy deer
from among all others, and will solemnly warn the huntsmen of the
futility of following such a trail.
Those of us, and they are many, who entertain a profound respect, not
merely for M. Gaston Paris’ learning, but also for his keen critical
instinct, and what I can best express as ‘sense of atmosphere,’ have
hesitated, even though little evidence appeared to be forthcoming, to
dismiss lightly, not to say discourteously, a theory which had the
support of his authority; the foregoing pages will, I hope, show grounds
for believing that an investigation, conducted perhaps on somewhat
different lines to those hitherto in favour, will fully justify this
hesitation.
We are only on the threshold of Arthurian criticism, and till we have
thoroughly familiarised ourselves with the elementary conditions of the
problem before us, it is both premature and unscientific to expect to
obtain in any section of this wide field a result which can be claimed
as permanent. Thoroughness is an admirable quality; but the thoroughness
which consists in carefully and microscopically surveying a single part,
before we have ascertained the relation of that part to the whole, is
only too apt to result in throwing that whole hopelessly out of focus.
The time has not yet come when a final study of any part of the
Arthurian legend, based upon a comparison of all the texts, is possible
or indeed desirable. The different threads that form the shifting
pattern of the fabric are so interwoven that no one can as yet be
disentangled _beyond a certain point_ without injury to the whole.
Thus neither the _Gawain_, the _Perceval_, nor the _Lancelot_ stories
can at the present moment receive satisfactory and _final_ treatment. In
the advanced stages of Arthurian legendary development these three main
lines of tradition have become so entangled, have crossed and
complicated each other to such an extent, that it is only by following
what we may call a parallel method of study that we can hope to
determine their exact relationship to each other; while until that exact
relationship be accurately determined, a scientific study of the cycle,
as a whole, is impossible. There appear to me to be three possible lines
of investigation, any one of which will probably throw light on the
other two; while the results to be obtained from all three would go far
towards providing a sound and scientific basis for future inquiries.
These three are (_a_) The various versions of the Gawain Grail quest;
absolutely necessary if we desire to understand the development of the
Grail section of the cycle. (_b_) The _Perceval_ continuations; which
contain sections belonging to early and non-cyclic versions of the
stories affected, combined with sections drawn from later and cyclic
redactions. These texts will also throw light upon the small and
interesting cycle of the _Bel Inconnu_, which is connected with all the
three lines of tradition, and is important for all. (_c_) A comparative
study of the various _Lancelot_ versions, which will enable us to
disentangle the earlier _Perceval-Lancelot_ redactions from the later
_Galahad_ development.
But in this investigation there are certain principles which must be
kept clearly in view. We must remember that a cycle like the Arthurian
cycle, compounded largely of what we may call mythical and imaginative
elements, and largely devoid of historical basis, cannot be examined and
criticised on the same principles and by the same methods as can the
Charlemagne cycle, where historic conditions, though modified for
romantic purposes, have controlled and shaped the process of
development.[67]
In this latter case an appeal to documentary evidence, and a criticism
conducted largely on literary lines, is, by nature of the material to be
dealt with, entirely in its place; in the former, inasmuch as the
material of which it is composed belongs far less to history than to
that indefinable body we call popular tradition, which never finds more
than partial expression in literature, and yet maintains its character
practically unchanged throughout the centuries, we must follow a
different method.
Not that the historic element is to be neglected; far from it. On the
contrary, I would urge that greater attention be bestowed on certain
historic factors than has hitherto been the case. The Arthurian romances
do not, as do the Charlemagne, reflect more or less correctly certain
facts, or periods of history, but the circumstances and surroundings of
their origin may nevertheless have been more or less determined by
historic conditions, _i.e._ the influence exercised by the court and
policy of Henry II.
We are perfectly well aware that a feature of that monarch’s domestic
policy was his desire to conciliate the Welsh by a clever use of their
popular traditions. The alleged discovery of King Arthur’s tomb at
Glastonbury was, as most historians now recognise, merely an ingenious
move in the political game. To what extent he carried his encouragement
and adoption of Arthurian tradition we have perhaps hardly yet realised.
The fact that it was possible to publish in 1167 a correspondence
purporting to be between the King and Arthur in Avalon shows that if
Henry did not directly encourage the forgery, he at least saw no ground
for discouraging it, and was willing to play into the hands of any one
furthering this special line of conciliation. We know, as a matter of
literary evidence, that the manuscripts of a very large section of
Arthurian prose romance attribute their composition to the direct
command of the king; but so far we have not attempted to ascertain the
precise value to be placed on this recurring testimony. I believe myself
that a careful investigation into the literary patronage exercised by
Henry, and his interest in Arthurian traditions, would yield results
somewhat disconcerting to the adherents of the Continental School.
Of the value of folk-lore and folk-tale as witnesses in the case of a
group of stories based largely upon popular tradition, and in their
earlier stages of evolution the property of popular story-tellers, we
are only slowly becoming aware. But the study of story-transmission has
in these last years made immense strides, and may now claim to be fairly
based upon sound scientific principles. The extent to which such a
study, accurately and carefully carried on, may reflect light upon
allied subjects, such as the Arthurian cycle, has yet to be realised. It
may be hoped that these pages will lend encouragement to the following
up of this special line of investigation.
But there is a danger in our path. Admiration for the learning and
indefatigable industry of German scholars has, I fear, caused too many
of us to erect into a fetich the result of their labours, and to hold
ourselves thereby absolved from the toil of first-hand investigation.
This is to render no true service to the cause of scholarship; no one
man, no group of men, may claim to be infallible. The result of recent
investigation into the value and correctness of Dr. Sommer’s _Studies on
the Sources of Malory_,[68] a book which for ten years past has been
unhesitatingly accepted in scholarly circles as a reliable authority,
should be an object lesson to all of us in the necessity of caution, and
the individual responsibility which rests upon each to ascertain
independently, so far as it be possible, the correctness and solidity of
the ground upon which we found our arguments and our conclusions.
Careful and systematic work, with, from time to time, the revision and
comparison of results, only to be attained by publication, will, I
believe, before very long, enable us to place the criticism of the
Arthurian cycle upon a really satisfactory basis. At present it is vain
to hope that any one of us can produce, in this particular line of
literary investigation, a _magnum opus_ that shall be beyond the
necessity of revision, and sealed with the stamp of permanent and
enduring value.
Footnotes
[1]Professor Foerster’s edition of the poems of Chrétien de Troyes are
probably the most satisfactory critical texts we at present possess,
but the value of these is greatly impaired by the controversial use
made of the prefaces attached to them.
[2]These and other details will be found in Mr. Ward’s article on
‘Ipomedon,’ _Catalogue of Romances_, vol. i.
[3]_Ipomedon_ in drei englischen Bearbeitungen: Breslau 1889.
[4]_Supra_, p. xxix.
[5]The fact that, as we have pointed out, he sometimes agrees with one,
sometimes with the other version, seems to indicate that he knew the
common original of both.
[6]_Ipomedon_, A. l. 5500.
[7]_Lanzelet_, Von Zatzikhoven, ll. 2911-15.
[8]_Dutch Lancelot_, vol. i. ll. 42,819 _et seq._
[9]_Ipomedon_, p. xxviii.
[10]For the various epilogues and ascriptions of authorship, cf. _Die
Sage vom Gral_, Birch-Hirschfeld, chap. vii.
[11]Cf. Birch-Hirschfeld, _supra_.
[12]_Vide De Nugis Curialium_, ed. Wright, p. viii.
[13]Cf. _supra_, p. 5.
[14]Cf. P. Paris, _Romans de la Table Ronde_, vol. iii.
[15]Cf. _D. L._, vol. i. ll. 19,595 _et seq._; _Legend of Sir Lancelot_,
p. 235.
[16]Cf. _supra_, p. 5.
[17]_The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac_, Grimm Library, vol. xii.
[18]Cf. the reference to this adventure in _Morien_, quoted _supra_, p.
5.
[19]For these three colours in this connection, cf. my translation of
_Parzival_, vol. i. p. 317.
[20]P. 5.
[21]Cf. _Lanzelet_, ll. 9309 _et seq._
[22]Hucher, _Le Grand S. Graal_, vol. i. p. 421.
[23]Professor Foerster’s remark (_Charrette_, Introduction, p. xlvi),
that Hugo would, not improbably, take with him a copy of the last
romance which had created a popular _furore_, is one of those
gratuitous assumptions which, to the learned professor, assume the
virtue of facts, but which cannot be admitted, by any serious
critic, as a contribution to the argument. Professor Foerster seems
to imagine a twelfth century ‘Mudie’ with a ‘run’ on the latest
novel! If the source of the _Lanzelet_ had created in any sense a
_furore_, it would scarcely have disappeared so completely.
Considering the slowness of reproduction in those days, it is at
least as likely that the book was an old and valued favourite; but
as I said above, such hypotheses do not advance the question one way
or the other.
[24]Cf. _Cligés_, ll. 4575-4985.
[25]_Charrette_, p. xliii.
[26]P. cxxvi.
[27]P. cxxxviii.
[28]P. xix.
[29]I believe myself that the two works of the greatest importance for
determining the evolution of the Arthurian cycle are these lost
French sources of the _Lanzelet_ and of the _Parzival_. It is not, I
think, impossible that fragments at least may remain entombed in
some library. When their importance is more generally recognised
there may perhaps be an organised attempt made at their discovery.
[30]I have not seen either of these German fragments. Professor
Foerster’s tendency to claim as Chrétien’s undoubted property
everything that even remotely resembles the work of the French poet
makes caution needful. I give the statement entirely upon his
authority. With regard to the passage in the _Parzival_, Book XII.
l. 116, _et seq._, at first sight it seems clearly to refer to
Chrétien’s poem; but, as Professor Foerster himself admits, the work
clearly consists of two sections, and it seems quite possible that
the first part, the story of Alexander and Soredamors, may have been
known independently. As the testimony of the _Perceval_ poems
proves, there was current a love story connected with a sister of
Gawain. The weak point in this _Parzival_ allusion is, that the poet
is recalling the torments that Gawain and his kin have suffered
through ‘_Minne_.’ Now the love story of Cligés and Phenice is far
more tragic than that of Cligés’ parents; and it is difficult to
understand why, if the writer knew the _whole_ poem, he should refer
only to the weaker illustration, as both are equally connected with
Gawain. I suspect myself that the allusion was in Wolfram’s source,
and refers to the source of the _Cligés_.
[31]Printed in Weber’s _Metrical Romances_, vol. i.
[32]Cf. _Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 81.
[33]_Ibid._ p. 5.
[34]Chaps. ii and iv.
[35]Vol. ii. No. XLIII.
[36]_Tiroler Kinder- und Haus-Märchen._
[37]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. i. No. I.
[38]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. i. No. XII.
[39]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. ii. p. 96.
[40]_Op. cit._, vol. ii. No. LV.
[41]Grimm Library, vols. ii., iii., v.
[42]_Perseus_, vol. iii. p. 4.
[43]_Perseus_, vol. iii. p. 15.
[44]Cf. _The Cuchullin Saga_, Grimm Library, vol. viii. p. 81.
[45]Vol. i. p. 96.
[46]Cf. _supra_, p. 23.
[47]A reference to _Fortunio_, one of the tales of our group, included
in the fifteenth century collection of Straparola.
[48]The additions in italics are mine.—J. L. W.
[49]To this our present investigation enables us to add that while M.
Cosquin’s shepherd lad unites the pastoral features with the courtly
tournament, the Greek variant retains the flying steeds and gives us
the tournament to boot.
[50]The number is of course far greater, but Mr. Campbell unfortunately
did not live to know the _Contes Lorrains_ or the _Perseus_.
[51]_Popular Tales of the West Highlands_, vol. iv. pp. 277, 278.
[52]‘The Black Horse,’ _More Celtic Fairy Tales_, p. 226.
[53]Mr. Hartland also draws attention to the parallel between the three
disguises of the hero and the three dresses of the heroine in
certain variants of the _Cinderella_ story. In the _Aschenbrödel_
the robes are woven of sun, moon, and stars.
[54]Berlin, 1881.
[55]_Harvard Studies and Notes_, vol. v. pp. 94, 95.
[56]John Rous, _Life of Richard, Earl of Warwick_.
[57]I should like to draw the attention of readers to the fact that
these two ‘triplets’ of colours are also to be met with elsewhere.
Thus black, white, and red are found, as we have seen, in a famous
incident of the _Perceval_; and that curious book, _Durandus on
Symbolism_, gives them as the colours of the three veils covering
the altar at Passiontide. White, green, and red are found in the
legend of the Tree of Life, and Solomon’s Ship, preserved in the
_Queste_ and _Grand Saint Graal_. A friend, learned in such matters,
has informed me that these sets of colours represent certain
alchemical processes, and in that connection were well known in
mediæval times. It seems possible that there may have been some
hidden and mystical significance attached to their earliest use; we
have not fathomed all the secrets of folk-lore.
[58]P. 25.
[59]For details of Map’s life, cf. _Dictionary of National Biography_,
and the Introduction to Wright’s edition of _De Nugis Curialium_.
[60]I would draw the attention of students of the _Lais_ of Marie de
France to the fact that Map gives several versions of the wedding of
a knight with a fairy, or Otherworld, mistress. Also a version of a
visit to the Otherworld kingdom with an ending closely corresponding
with that of the _Voyage of Bran_, and _Guingamor_, and in each case
he locates the story in Wales. It is perfectly clear that tales,
such as we find in the _Lais_, were at least as well known in these
islands as on the Continent.
[61]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 83.
[62]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 11. The folk-lore allusions in the
_Lanzelet_ are worth following up.
[63]I am indebted to Mr. W. B. Blaikie for kindly verifying the
quotation for me.
[64]Cf. _Charrette_, p. lxxvii.
[65]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 46 _et seq._
[66]The theory which I advanced in chap. vii. of the _Legend of Sir
Lancelot_ with regard to the temporary disappearance of the
tradition of Guinevere’s infidelity is, I think, strengthened by the
evidence of the various ‘chastity-test’ _Lais_, Horn, Mantle, Glove.
We might reasonably expect Guinevere to come but poorly out of such
an ordeal; as a rule, however, she escapes very easily, far more
easily, indeed, than the majority of the ladies of the court. In one
case we are clearly given to understand that her sole error, a
trivial one, has been one of thought. Now the _lais_ represent, as
is generally admitted, an early stage of romantic evolution, and
taken into consideration with the evidence of the earlier poems,
they certainly appear to strengthen the argument tentatively put
forward in my _Lancelot_, _e.g._ that the tradition of the queen’s
faithlessness to her husband belonged to the _historic_ legend and
was, as such, preserved in the pseudo-chronicles; it had no
existence in the _romantic_ legend till introduced under the
influence of a special social condition, and in this its later form,
it is not to be regarded as a survival of the historic Modred story,
but as a later and independent development.
[67]Cf. _Popular Studies_, No. 10 (Nutt), _The Romance Cycle of
Charlemagne and his Peers_, where I have pointed out the fundamental
differences between the cycles.
[68]On this point, cf. Mr. Greg’s review of my _Lancelot_ studies,
_Folk-Lore_, December 1901.
Edinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable
Transcriber’s Notes
--Copyright notice provided as in the original—this e-text is public
domain in the country of publication.
--Silently corrected palpable typos; left non-standard spellings and
dialect unchanged.
--Compared text section headings to the Table of Contents; inserted
additional headings (but did not reword existing headings) to match
the Table of Contents.
--Only in the text versions, delimited italicized or blackletter text in
_underscores_ (the HTML version reproduces the font form of the
printed book.)
--Only in the text versions, preceded superscript characters by a caret
(as in d^a).
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Three Days' Tournament - A Study in Romance and Folk-Lore. Being an Appendix to the - Author's 'Legend of Sir Lancelot'" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.