{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_46497/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_46497","id":"gutenberg_46497","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46497","summary":null,"tags":["Arthurian romances -- History and criticism","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Chr\u00e9tien, de Troyes, active 12th century. Chevalier de la charrette","Cycles (Literature)","Knights and knighthood in literature","Lancelot (Legendary character) -- Romances -- History and criticism","Ulrich, von Zatzikhoven, active approximately 1200 -- Characters -- Lancelot"],"text":"=Grimm Library=\n\n  No. 12\n\n  THE LEGEND OF SIR LANCELOT DU LAC\n\n\n\n\n  =The Grimm Library.=\n\n\n I. GEORGIAN FOLK-TALES. Translated by MARJORY WARDROP. _Cr._ _8vo_,\n _pp._ xii+175. 5_s._ _net_.\n\n II., III., V. THE LEGEND OF PERSEUS. By EDWIN SIDNEY HARTLAND, F.S.A. 3\n vols. \u00a31, 7_s._ 6_d._ _net_.\n\n    VOL. I. THE SUPERNATURAL BIRTH. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xxxiv+228\n    (_not sold separately_).\n\n    VOL. II. THE LIFE-TOKEN. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ viii+445. 12_s._\n    6_d._ _net_.\n\n    VOL. III. ANDROMEDA. MEDUSA. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xxxvii+225.\n    7_s._ 6_d._ _net_.\n\n IV., VI. THE VOYAGE OF BRAN, SON OF FEBAL. An Eighth-century Irish\n Saga, now first edited and translated by KUNO MEYER.\n\n    VOL. I. With an Essay upon the Happy Otherworld in Irish Myth, by\n    ALFRED NUTT. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xvii+331. 10_s._ 6_d._ _net_.\n\n    VOL. II. With an Essay on the Celtic Doctrine of Rebirth, by ALFRED\n    NUTT. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xii+352. 10_s._ 6_d._ _net_.\n\n VII. THE LEGEND OF SIR GAWAIN. Studies upon its Original Scope and\n Significance. By Jessie L. Weston, translator of Wolfram von\n Eschenbach's 'Parzival.' _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xiv+111. 4_s._ _net_.\n\n VIII. THE CUCHULLIN SAGA IN IRISH LITERATURE. Being a Collection of\n Stories relating to the Hero Cuchullin, translated from the Irish by\n various Scholars. Compiled and Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by\n ELEANOR HULL. _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ lxxix+316. 7_s._ 6_d._ _net_.\n\n IX., X. THE PRE-AND PROTO-HISTORIC FINNS, both Eastern and Western,\n with the Magic Songs of the West Finns. By the Hon. JOHN\n ABERCROMBY. Vol. I., _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xxiv+363. Vol.\n II., _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ xiii+400. \u00a31, 1_s._ _net_.\n\n XI. THE HOME OF THE EDDIC POEMS. With Especial Reference to the\n 'Helgi Lays,' by SOPHUS BUGGE, Professor in the University\n of Christiania. Revised Edition, with a new Introduction concerning\n Old Norse Mythology, by the Author, translated from the Norwegian by\n WILLIAM HENRY SCHOFIELD, Instructor in Harvard University.\n _Cr._ _8vo_, _pp._ lxxix+408. 12_s._ _net_.\n\n  _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n  The Legend of\n  Sir Lancelot du Lac\n\n  Studies upon its Origin, Development,\n  and Position in the Arthurian\n  Romantic Cycle\n\n  By\n  Jessie L. Weston\n\n  London\n  Published by David Nutt\n  At the Sign of the Phoenix\n  Long Acre\n  1901\n\n\n\n  Edinburgh: T. and A. CONSTABLE, (late) Printers to Her Majesty\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe Studies contained in the following pages were, in the first\ninstance, undertaken some four or five years ago. From time to time the\nexigencies of other literary work have compelled me to lay them aside,\nbut the subject has never been lost sight of, and, not infrequently,\nstudies in appearance wholly unconnected with the _Lancelot_ legend\nhave thrown an unexpected and welcome light on certain points of the\nstory. Undertaken, in the first instance, with an absolutely open mind\n(even after I had been working at it for two or three years I should\nhave been sorely at a loss if asked to state a theory of the origin\nof the story), it was only by slow degrees that the real bearing of\nthe evidence became clear, and I felt that I had at last grasped a\nguiding thread through the perplexing maze. The results, which perhaps\nto some readers may appear startlingly subversive of opinions formally\nexpressed by certain distinguished scholars, were wholly unforeseen.\nThey are the outcome of genuine study of original texts; whether, in\nthe long-run they be, or be not generally accepted, I would at least\nplead that they be judged _on the evidence of those texts_.\n\nIn certain cases I have little doubt as to the verdict. So far as the\nevidence concerning the sources of Malory, and the differing versions\nof the prose _Lancelot_, is concerned, the facts, now brought forward\nfor the first time, are beyond dispute. They may, I hope they will, be\nhereafter added to, and confirmed. As they stand they encourage us to\nhope that further study of the material already available may yield\nwelcome, and perhaps unsuspected results.\n\nWe are, so far, only on the threshold of a satisfactory and scientific\ncriticism of the Arthurian cycle, and I doubt whether all who are\nengaged in this study recognise sufficiently either the extent and\ncomplexity of the questions involved, or the absolute futility of,\nat this early stage, enunciating dogmatic decisions on any of the\nvarious points at issue. Is there any one living scholar who is\nperfectly aware of _all_ the evidence at our disposal for any of the\ngreat stories of the cycle? If there be, he will know, better than any\nother, that till critical editions place us in a position to determine\nthe characteristic readings of the MSS. representing not one\nalone, but _all_ those stories, their inter-relation, their points of\ncontact with, and variance from each other, the very best work that can\nbe done will be liable to bear the impress of a temporary character--it\nwill not, it cannot be, final.\n\nElsewhere, I have urged that this fact be recognised and acted upon,\nand I cannot but hope that the evidence collected in these studies may\nhelp to convince others of the real necessity for a determined effort\nto edit and render accessible the principal Arthurian texts, and the\ncertain and permanent profit likely to result from such a work.\n\n  BOURNEMOUTH, _February 1901_.\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n\n\n   CHAPTER I\n                                                                 PAGE\n INTRODUCTORY REMARKS                                             1-4\n\n Lancelot not a character of primitive Arthurian tradition          4\n\n First recorded mention by Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes and sudden\n growth in popularity                                             5-7\n\n\n   CHAPTER II\n\n   THE 'LANZELET' OF ULRICH VON ZATZIKHOVEN\n\n Lancelot--Theories as to origin of name--M. de la Villemarqu\u00e9--\n Professor Rhys--M. Gaston Paris--Professor Zimmer--Professor\n Foerster--Proposed Celtic derivation unsatisfactory             8-10\n\n Summary of poem                                                11-17\n\n Discussion of poem--Contradictory character of contents; not\n necessarily proof of late origin                               18-21\n\n Process of evolution sketched                                  23-25\n\n Connection between _Lanzelet_ and _Parzival_ of Wolfram von\n Eschenbach--Not merely a superficial borrowing of names--\n Necessity for critical edition of the _Lanzelet_, and careful\n comparison of the two poems                                    25-29\n\n\n   CHAPTER III\n\n   LANCELOT ET LE CERF AU PIED BLANC\n\n Summary of poem                                                30-32\n\n _Lai de Tyolet_--Older variant, but real nature of story\n even then obscured                                             32-34\n\n 'False Claimant' _motif_ foreign to original _Lai_             34-35\n\n Influence of _Tristan_ noticeable in the _Morien_ variant--\n Possible connection with _Lai_                                 35-38\n\n Reasons for omission of adventure in later versions            38-39\n\n\n   CHAPTER IV\n\n   LE CHEVALIER DE LA CHARRETTE\n\n Summary of poem                                                40-42\n\n Structure of poem confused and unsatisfactory--Probable\n reasons for this                                               42-46\n\n Versions of Guinevere's imprisonment--Comparison with\n Siegfried-Brynhild story--Legend primitive and in earliest\n form unlocalised--Localisation points to an insular\n redaction                                                      46-49\n\n Relation between Chr\u00e9tien's poem and other versions--Malory's\n version cannot be proved to be drawn from prose _Lancelot_--\n _Iwein_ certainly independent of _Charrette_--_Parzival_\n doubtful--Two latter possibly represent earlier version,\n imperfectly known by Chr\u00e9tien                                  49-53\n\n\n   CHAPTER V\n\n   THE POSITION OF CHR\u00c9TIEN DE TROYES IN THE\n   ARTHURIAN CYCLE\n\n Source of Chr\u00e9tien's poems an important problem                   54\n\n Professor Foerster's views summarised--The Arthurian legend\n partly historic, partly romantic--Latter of exclusively\n continental origin                                             55-56\n\n Reply to Professor Foerster--Arthurian tradition of greater\n extent and of wider diffusion than supposed--Evidence for\n early diffusion of _romantic_ tradition                           56\n\n Necessity of distinguishing between _mythic_ and _romantic_\n tradition--Former of strongly marked Celtic-Irish character,\n and mainly preserved in _insular_ tradition                    56-61\n\n Condition of Arthurian tradition when Chr\u00e9tien wrote--No\n longer purely oral--Necessity for understanding what is\n involved in oral transmission--Mr. Hartland's evidence\n on this point--The Breton _lais_ folk-lore in character--\n Gradual process of Arthurisation--Evidence of _Yvain_--\n The process well advanced at the time Chr\u00e9tien wrote           61-68\n\n Necessity for determining original character of story before\n criticising, _i.e._ tales of folk-lore origin demand a different\n method of criticism from that applicable to tales of purely\n literary invention--Professor Foerster's theory of origin of\n _Yvain_ examined and rejected as not consonant with archaic\n character of tale                                              68-77\n\n Proposed origin of _Perceval_ also unsatisfactory, not in\n harmony with statements made elsewhere by Chr\u00e9tien--Strong\n probability that the tale, in its completed form, is older\n than has hitherto been supposed                                78-80\n\n Folk-lore character of _Erec_, _Yvain_, and _Perceval_ probably\n an important element in their popularity                          81\n\n The varying geography of Chr\u00e9tien's poems evidence of varying\n source                                                         82-83\n\n Probable relation between Chr\u00e9tien's poems and the Welsh\n versions--Resemblance does not necessarily postulate dependence   85\n\n General summary of principles resulting from present\n investigation, and their bearing upon position ultimately to\n be assigned to Chr\u00e9tien                                        86-88\n\n\n   CHAPTER VI\n\n   THE PROSE LANCELOT--THE 'ENFANCES' OF THE HERO\n\n Necessity of examining _all_ the existing MSS. before a critical\n study of the legend can be attempted--Present studies concerned\n only with leading points of story, and certain\n variants in printed texts                                      89-90\n\n Arthurian cycle in present form redacted under influence of\n completed _Lancelot_ story                                     91-93\n\n _Enfances_ of hero in prose _Lancelot_ a modified form of\n story related by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven--Points of contact\n between prose _Lancelot_ and _Parzival_ of Wolfram von\n Eschenbach                                                     93-96\n\n MS. evidence of contact with _Perceval_ story                  96-97\n\n Parallel with _Bel Inconnu_ poems--The _Lancelot_ later than\n either _Perceval_ or _Bel Inconnu_--Connection with Lady of\n the Lake alone of the essence of the story--Necessity for\n studying character of fairy protectress before deciding\n original form of _Enfances_                                    97-99\n\n\n   CHAPTER VII\n\n   THE PROSE LANCELOT--THE LOVES OF LANCELOT\n   AND GUINEVERE\n\n Short notice of incidents of frequent repetition in the\n romance--Impossibility of deciding, with our present\n knowledge, which belong to original redaction                100-103\n\n Do the mutual relations of Lancelot and Guinevere represent an\n original feature of the Arthurian story, or are we to consider\n them a later addition?                                           103\n\n Early evidence of Guinevere's infidelity--Testimony of the\n chroniclers--Wace--Layamon                                   104-107\n\n Mordred not the original lover, but his representative       107-108\n\n Original lover possibly Gawain                               108-111\n\n Lancelot story a later development and independent of\n earlier tradition--Influence of the _Tristan_ legend--\n Motive determining choice of lover                           111-117\n\n Suggested evolution of Lancelot--Guinevere story             117-118\n\n\n   CHAPTER VIII\n\n   THE PROSE LANCELOT--LANCELOT AND THE GRAIL\n\n Intricacy of questions involved--Grail problem, so far, has\n not been solved--Possibility that mutual relation between\n _Lancelot_ and _Grail_ romances may yield us the key to\n both problems                                                119-120\n\n Necessity of distinguishing three distinct _Questes_--Later\n Grail _Queste_ combination of _Grail_ (Perceval) and\n _Ch\u00e2teau Merveil_ (Gawain) adventures                            121\n\n Dr. Wechssler's theory of _Grail-Lancelot_ cycle examined--\n Results as deduced by author unsatisfactory                  121-124\n\n Evidence of MS. 751 key to truth--Original Borron _Queste_ a\n Perceval, not a Galahad, _Queste_--Didot _Perceval_\n represents an early, _Perceval li Gallois_ a later, form\n of Perceval-Lancelot--Grail _Queste_ evidence for this\n discussed                                                    124-132\n\n Origin of the Galahad _Queste_--Dependent upon the _Lancelot_,\n but by another hand--Contradiction between presentment\n of characters and essential _motif_ of story                 133-140\n\n Motives determining evolution of Galahad _Queste_--Necessity of\n connecting two main branches of tradition, _Lancelot_ and\n the _Grail_--This only possible under certain conditions\n which we find fulfilled in the _Queste_                      140-146\n\n\n   CHAPTER IX\n\n   THE DUTCH LANCELOT\n\n Importance of this text as a faithful translation of an\n excellent original                                           147-149\n\n Contents summarised                                          149-151\n\n Close connection with edition 1533, Philippe Lenoire--Importance\n of these two versions for criticism of Malory's compilation      151\n\n Detailed comparison of texts with Dr. Sommer's summary of\n prose _Lancelot_ and with original text of Malory            152-164\n\n\n   CHAPTER X\n\n   THE QUESTE VERSIONS\n\n Comparison of texts continued--Dutch _Lancelot_--French\n 1533--Malory--Welsh _Queste_--Dr. Furnivall's _Queste_--Dr.\n Sommer's summary                                             166-185\n\n Conclusion--General agreement of the first four against the\n last two--The former representing a superior family of\n texts--Malory's source an _Agravain-Queste_ MS. belonging to\n same family as 1533 and Dutch translation--No proof that\n Malory knew earlier section of _Lancelot_                    185-188\n\n Variations of _Queste_ MSS. apparently due to copyist rather\n than to compiler--The romance a _Lancelot_, rather than a\n _Grail_, romance                                             188-193\n\n\n   CHAPTER XI\n\n   THE MORT ARTUR\n\n Comparison of texts continued                                195-205\n\n Results confirm previous conclusion, showing continued\n agreement of 1533 and Dutch translation, and strengthen\n theory that text used by Malory belonged to same family          205\n\n\n   CHAPTER XII\n\n   CONCLUSION\n\n Summary of investigation--Results arrived at                 206-212\n\n The mutual relations of _Perceval_ and _Lancelot_ stories\n of primary importance in evolution of Arthurian romantic\n cycle--Necessity for critical editions of these texts        212-214\n\n\n   APPENDIX\n\n The _Lancelot_ section of D.L.                               215-247\n\n   INDEX                                                          248\n\n\n\n\nTHE LEGEND OF SIR LANCELOT DU LAC\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n\nTo the great majority of English readers, those who are familiar with\nthe Arthurian legend through the pages of Malory and Tennyson, the name\nwhich occurs most readily to their minds in connection with the court\nand Table of King Arthur is that of Lancelot du Lac, at once the most\ngallant servant of the king, and the secret lover of the queen. To many\nthe story of Lancelot and Guinevere is the most famous of all stories\nof unlawful love.\n\nTrue, of late years the popularity of Wagner's music has made their\nears, at least, familiar with the names of Tristan and Iseult. Still,\nthat Tristan and Iseult were ever as famous as Lancelot and Guinevere,\nfew outside the ranks of professed students of medi\u00e6val literature\nwould believe; still fewer admit that the loves of Arthur's queen and\nArthur's knight were suggested by, if not imitated from, the older,\nmore poetic, and infinitely more convincing, Celtic love-tale; that\nLancelot, as Arthur's knight and Guinevere's lover, is a comparatively\nlate addition to the Arthurian legend.\n\nYet so it is. I doubt if any scholar of standing would now argue that\nLancelot and his relation to the queen formed an integral portion of\nthe early tradition; if any, conversant with the literature of the\ncycle, would reckon Lancelot among the original band of heroes who\ngathered round the British king.\n\nIn the introduction to my studies on the Gawain legend, I remarked\nthat, if we desired to arrive at an elucidation of the Arthurian\nproblem as a whole, we must first begin with the elucidation of its\ncomponent parts--we must severally disentangle the legends connected\nwith the leading knights of the cycle before we can hope to understand\nthe growth and development of that cycle. When we have arrived at some\nclear idea concerning the stories originally told of the Arthurian\nheroes, and their relation to each other and to the king, we shall\nthen be in a better position to judge of the nature of the original\nlegend--whether it be mainly the product of literary invention, or in\nits more important features, the work of mythical tradition. It is\nnot a matter of slight importance to ascertain to which of these two\ncategories the leading heroes of Arthurian romance belong.\n\nIn the case of Sir Gawain we were able to detect certain features\nwhich, by their persistent recurrence in the great mass of tradition\nconnected with this knight, seemed to indicate a general recognition on\nthe part of the romance writers that they belonged to an early form of\nhis story, and as such were to be preserved even when but incompletely\nunderstood. Further I pointed out the parallels existing between\ncertain of his most famous adventures and those recorded in early Irish\ntradition, parallels which went far to prove, not merely the antiquity\nof the feats ascribed to him, but their source in Celtic myth.\n\nIn the following studies I shall endeavour, in the same way, to trace\nto its origin the legend of Lancelot du Lac, to discover what was the\ntale originally connected with him, and, if possible, follow the steps\nwhich led to the immense development of his popularity. I do not for a\nmoment suggest, any more than in the case of Gawain, the finality of\nthe results arrived at; but I hope at least to present the reader with\na sorely needed summary of the Lancelot legend, and to clear the ground\nfor further researches into his story.\n\nIn some ways the task before us is less difficult than that involved\nin the examination of the Gawain legend; the literature connected with\nLancelot, if extensive, is not diffuse; by far the greater portion is\ncovered by the prose _Lancelot_ and the Grail Romances. On the other\nhand the story, as compared with that of Gawain, is extraordinarily\ndeficient in characteristic features. The adventures ascribed to\nLancelot might just as well be placed to the credit of any other\nknight: they are the ordinary stock-in-trade of the medi\u00e6val romancer.\nGuinevere's lover he is, but the love-story is of the most conventional\ncharacter: the more it is studied the more clearly do the records\nin which it is shrined appear the offspring of conscious literary\ninvention, and that invention of by no means a high order. He is\ncertainly no hero of prehistoric myth, solar or otherwise, as Gawain or\nPerceval may well be; nor does he by force of sheer humanity lay hold\non our imagination, as does Tristan.\n\nHow then did Lancelot come into the Arthurian cycle? In the earliest\nrecords of Arthurian legend he holds no place. Wace's _Brut_, the\nFrench metrical version of the History of Geoffrey of Monmouth, written\nabout the middle of the twelfth century, gives the names of certain\nof Arthur's knights, Gawain, Kay, Bedivere, Iwein, but never mentions\nLancelot. We have an account of Arthur's expedition to France, in the\ncourse of which he slew Frollo outside the walls of Paris, an adventure\nwhich the compiler of the Prose _Lancelot_ places during the war\nagainst Claudas to recover Lancelot's patrimony, but in the _Brut_ this\nexpedition takes place at an early stage in Arthur's reign, and knows\nnothing of Lancelot or Claudas.[1]\n\nDating apparently from the same period, the middle of the twelfth\ncentury, is a bas-relief of the cathedral of Modena, representing a\nfemale figure standing on the summit of a tower, towards which several\narmed knights are approaching. Each knight is named, and we find\nrepresented Arthur himself, Gawain, Kay, Ider, Carados, and a certain\nGaluariun, who has not been identified. Lancelot is not among them.[2]\n\nThe Welsh Arthurian stories again know nothing of Lancelot, though\ncertain of them contain long lists of heroes of Arthur's court.[3]\n\nSo far as we can at present tell, the earliest mention of the knight is\nthat contained in the _Erec_ of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes, where in a long\nlist of the heroes of the Round Table, ranged according to merit (at\nleast in the case of the earlier names), Lanceloz del Lac is reckoned\nthird, the first two being Gawain and Erec.[4] In the German version by\nHartmann von Aue, he occupies the same place, but is called Lanzelot\nvon Arlac. Nothing more is related of him: he plays no r\u00f4le in the\nstory, he is a name, and nought else. In a later poem by Chr\u00e9tien,\n_Clig\u00e9s_, the same position, third on the roll of heroes, is ascribed\nto Lancelot, but here it is Perceval, and not Erec, who ranks second.\nThe hero of the poem, Clig\u00e9s, appears at a tournament four successive\ndays, in different armour, and overthrows Segramor, Lancelot, and\nPerceval, finally fighting an undecided combat with Gawain.[5] The\n_Clig\u00e9s_ reference is particularly noticeable, as the _motif_ of the\nstory is the love of the hero for the young wife of his uncle and\nsovereign. In this connection the loves of Tristan and Iseult are often\nreferred to, but Lancelot and Guinevere never. It seems clear that\nwhen Chr\u00e9tien wrote this poem he did not know Lancelot as the lover of\nArthur's queen and the chief of Arthur's knights.\n\nBut in the poem which followed the _Clig\u00e9s_, _Le Chevalier de la\nCharrette_, Lancelot suddenly appears in both these characters,\nGawain's superior and the lover of Guinevere: no explanation of the\nchanged position is offered, but Chr\u00e9tien takes for granted the\nfamiliarity of his audience with the relations between the knight\nand the queen. To add to the confusion, in the succeeding poem _Le\nChevalier au Lion_, Lancelot is only once referred to, in connection\nwith the _Charrette_ adventure, and is never mentioned as one of\nthe knights of Arthurs household; while in Chr\u00e9tien's last poem, the\n_Perceval_, he is altogether ignored.[6]\n\nIt is very difficult, indeed impossible, to date Chr\u00e9tien's poems\nwith exactness. The only two which afford clear internal evidence on\nthe point, _Le Chevalier de la Charrette_ and _Le Chevalier au Lion_,\nfall within the years 1164-1173. _Erec_ was the first of his Arthurian\npoems, and between _Erec_ and the _Charrette_, certainly one work,\n_Clig\u00e9s_, and it may be several, intervened.[7]\n\nVery probably the _Erec_ was written early in the decade, 1150-60,\nand taken in conjunction with the negative evidence afforded by the\n_Brut_ and the Italian bas-relief, it goes to prove that whereas the\nname of Gawain, as connected with Arthur, was known by the end of the\neleventh century,[8] Arthurian tradition knew nothing of Lancelot till\nthe latter half of the twelfth; and that no mention of his relations\nwith Guinevere is found till between 1160-1170, that is, a decade after\nthe first mention of his name. It is, of course, a well-recognised\nfact in the study of romance, that the date of a manuscript does not\nfix the date of the story contained in it; a younger manuscript may\ncontain the same story under an older form. As a rule, the versions\ncontained in Chr\u00e9tien's poems appear to present a fairly old form of\nthe stories they relate, saving in the case of Lancelot. About this\nknight, Chr\u00e9tien either knows nothing or he knows too much. The earlier\nstages of his story he leaves unrecorded; yet an allusion in the\n_Charrette_ poem[9] shows that he was not unacquainted with the legend\nconcerning his youth and upbringing. Two versions of this legend have\nbeen preserved to us, one in verse and one in prose. In the following\nchapter we will examine the older of these versions, and inquire into\nthe origin of our hero's name.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE 'LANZELET' OF ULRICH VON ZATZIKHOVEN\n\n\nThe origin of the name _Lancelot_ has been a subject of considerable\ndebate among scholars, and has given rise to the most widely differing\nexplanations. M. de la Villemarqu\u00e9, who was a warm advocate of the\nWelsh origin of the Arthurian stories, derived the name from the French\n_l'ancelot_, a youth or servant, which he held to be a translation of\nthe Welsh Melwas, or Maelwas. This solution was rejected by M. Gaston\nParis, in his study on the Lancelot poems,[10] in which he showed\nthat _ancelot_ was not a French common name, and that Maelwas did not\nbear the signification attributed to it. Professor Rhys,[11] adopting\nthe theory of the Welsh origin of the name, which in its present form\nhe admitted only exists in Welsh literature as borrowed from French\nor English sources, decided that it represented a Welsh variant of\nPeredur, the root of this latter name being _P\u00e2r_=_a spear or lance_.\n'The characters,' says Professor Rhys, 'were originally the same,\nthough their respective developments eventually differed very widely.'\nI doubt if this solution ever found any adherents except its author:\nit is sufficient to remark that the derivation of Peredur, on which\nit rests, is by no means universally accepted, and that Lancelot is in\nno special way connected with a spear or lance.[12] It is certainly\ntrue that the Lancelot story shows signs of having been affected by the\nPerceval legend, but as we shall see the borrowings are restricted to\none special and purely continental form of the story.\n\nM. Gaston Paris, in the study referred to above, suggested that\nLancelot might be either a Celtic name altered, or, more probably, the\nsubstitution, by French poets, of a name of Germanic origin for one\nof Breton form strange to the ears of their French audiences, _e.g._\nit might be a diminutive form of _Lanzo_. This is also the conclusion\nof Professor Zimmer.[13] The prefix _Lant_ is often found in names of\nFrankish origin transferred to Breton ground: such names are Lando,\nLandolin; Lanzo, Lanzolin, etc.\n\nIn the introduction to his edition of the _Charrette_, recently\npublished,[14] Professor Foerster announces his complete adhesion to\nthis view.\n\nIt certainly seems that the evidence points strongly to this\nconclusion. The fact that Lancelot's name does not appear in the\nearliest obtainable Arthurian documents shows that he did not\nbelong to the original 'stoff' of the cycle; the entire silence of\nWelsh literature, and the practical silence of English vernacular\nromances,[15] seem to show that he formed no part of the _insular_\nArthurian tradition. For my own part I unhesitatingly accept Professor\nFoerster's dictum, '_Lancelot ist den Kymren g\u00e4nzlich unbekannt, und\nist unter allen Umst\u00e4nden Kontinentaler[16] Herkunft_.'[17]\n\nA weak point in the proposed Celtic solutions appears to me to be that\nboth entirely ignore the qualifying title _du Lac_, by which Lancelot\nis invariably known. Neither M. de la Villemarqu\u00e9 nor Professor Rhys\nappear to consider it of any special importance, yet if I mistake\nnot this is just the significant point of the Lancelot story, and\nthat which from the very outset differentiates it from the legends\nconnected with Peredur or Maelwas. From the moment of his appearance\nin Chr\u00e9tien's list of Arthur's knights to that in which the prose\n_Lancelot_ records his death in the odour of sanctity, Lancelot is\nLancelot _du Lac_, and the earliest version of his story which we\npossess amply justifies his claim to the title.\n\nThe poem of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven[18] is certainly later than either\nthe _Erec_ or the _Charrette_ of Chr\u00e9tien, but the tradition it\nembodies is anterior to the poem itself. Written in the opening years\nof the thirteenth century, it is, as explicitly stated in the text, the\ntranslation of '_daz welsche buoch von Lanzelete_,' brought to Germany\nby Hugo de Morville, one of the hostages who in 1194 replaced Richard\nof England in the prison of Leopold of Austria.[19] The date of the\noriginal French version cannot, of course, be fixed. In any case it\nmust have preceded its introduction into Germany; judging from internal\nevidence it represented an early and immature version of the Lancelot\nlegend. The story as related in the _Lanzelet_ is as follows: Lanzelet\nwas son to King Pant of Genew\u00ees and his wife Clarine. By a revolt of\nhis people Pant was driven from his kingdom with his wife and child.\nIn his flight he came to a stream, and there, overcome by his wounds,\nsank down and died. The queen had laid her child under a tree while she\ntended her husband, and before she could reach it again a water-fairy\n(_mer-feine_) came in a cloud of mist and carried off the infant. The\nfairy was a queen, ruling over ten thousand maidens, who knew no man.\nHer kingdom was called _Meide-lant_; there it was ever May-tide, and\nher palace had such virtue that whoso abode one day within it might\nnever know sorrow till the day of his death. There the little Lanzelet\nwas brought up, in ignorance of his name and rank, till he reached\nthe age of fifteen, knowing nothing of knighthood, nor even how to\nbestride a horse. Then eager to try his lot in the world outside he\ndemanded leave to ride forth. This the fairy granted, but refused to\ntell him his name and parentage; he must first conquer the strongest\nknight in the world, Iweret, of the fair wood Beforet.\n\nShe gave him rich armour, white as a swan, the best that might be, a\nsurcoat (_wafen-roc_) decked with golden bells; sword and shield, and a\ngoodly horse. But the lad did not know how to ride, so let the bridle\nhang loose and held on by the saddle-bow. In this fashion he rode till\nhe met a knight, Johfrit de Liez, who rebuked him for his childish\nbearing, and took him to his castle, where he was kindly welcomed by\nthe host's mother and her maidens, and instructed in riding and the use\nof knightly weapons.\n\nHis next adventure is to ride with two knights to the castle of one\nGalagandreiz. In the night the daughter of the host, condemned by her\nfather to perpetual virginity, offers her love to the three knights in\nturn; is accepted by Lanzelet, who fights a duel with her father, slays\nhim, and weds the maiden. One day he rode forth seeking adventures, and\nfound a road which led him to the castle of Limors. The folk attacked,\nand would have slain him, but for the intervention of Ade, niece to the\nlord of the castle. Lanzelet is thrown into prison, and only escapes by\nfighting single-handed, first with a giant, then with two lions, and\nfinally with the lord of the castle himself. Having slain this last, he\nbecomes the '_ami_' of the maiden Ade. (Whether he marries her or not\nis not clearly stated. In any case we hear no more of his first wife,\nthe daughter of Galagandreiz.)\n\nMeanwhile the fame of Lanzelet's exploits has penetrated to Arthur's\nears, and Gawain is sent to find the unnamed hero, and bring him to\nArthur's Court. They meet, and fight an undecided combat, terminated\nby the arrival of a messenger with tidings of a tournament between\nKing Lot of Johen\u00ees and Gurnemanz, _den f\u00fcrsten w\u00ees_. Lanzelet betakes\nhimself hither, wearing each day a different suit of armour, green, red\nand white, overthrows many knights, including King Lot, whom he set\nfree out of friendship for Gawain, and without revealing himself, rides\naway with Ade and her brother.\n\nThey come to a castle, Sch\u00e2tel le Mort, the master of which, M\u00e2b\u00fbz, is\na magician, and son to the fairy who had brought Lanzelet up. Lanzelet\nrides to the castle, which has this property, that whoever crosses\nits drawbridge at once loses all courage and hardihood. Lanzelet\nfalls under the spell, and is taken prisoner in the most ignominious\nmanner, much to the dismay of Ade, who rides off with her brother and\ndisappears from the story. The land of M\u00e2b\u00fbz adjoins that of Iweret\nof Beforet, who is in the habit of raiding his neighbour's territory.\nM\u00e2b\u00fbz, who is by nature a coward, determines that Lanzelet, whose fame\nis well known to him, shall be his champion. He has him carried by his\nmen without the walls of the castle, when his natural courage at once\nreturns. He rides to a fountain, beside which hangs a brazen cymbal on\nwhich he must strike three times with a hammer to summon his foe. In\nthe meantime Ibl\u00ees, the fair daughter of Iweret, has had a dream of\nan unknown knight whom she meets beside the fountain; she rises early\nto seek the scene of her dream, and finds the original of her vision\nin Lanzelet. She beseeches him to carry her off without waiting for\nthe conflict, but Lanzelet refuses. Iweret arrives and a fierce fight\nensues, in which he is slain. Lanzelet weds Ibl\u00ees and becomes master of\nBeforet.\n\nA messenger now arrives from the Fairy of the Lake, revealing\nLanzelet's name and parentage (his mother, Clarine, was sister to\nArthur). The object of her theft of the child is now accomplished: she\ndesired to secure a champion who would free her son M\u00e2b\u00fbz from his too\npowerful enemy. Lanzelet decides to seek Gawain, whom he now knows to\nbe his kinsman. On their way they meet a squire who informs them that\nthe King Valer\u00een (or Faler\u00een, the spelling varies), has appeared at\nArthur's court and laid claim to Guinevere, on the ground that she had\nbeen betrothed to him previous to her marriage with Arthur. If Valer\u00een\ncannot find a champion to oppose him he will carry off the queen.\nLanzelet undertakes the combat, and defeats Valer\u00een.\n\n(We must note here that Lanzelet's service to the queen is of a\n_preventive_ character, _i.e._ he saves her from the possibility of\nabduction, he does not rescue her after the abduction has taken place.)\n\nLanzelet then leaves his wife at court, and goes forth to seek the\ncastle of Plur\u00ees, which he had passed on his journey from _Meide-land_\nand the adventure of which he desires to test. There he is challenged\nby one hundred knights, whom he successively overthrows, and weds the\nqueen (Ulrich says quaintly, '_ich enweiz ob erz ungerne tet, wan diu\nk\u00f6nig\u00een was ein schoene maget_, 5530-1). Ibl\u00ees remains at Arthur's\ncourt, grieving for the disappearance of her husband, during whose\nabsence she successfully withstands the _Mantle_ test, an incident of\nnot infrequent occurrence in Arthurian romance.\n\nHearing that Lanzelet is a prisoner at Plur\u00ees, Gawain, Karjet\n(Gaheriet?), Erec, and Tristan go in search of him, and, by means of a\nruse, succeed in freeing him. The queen of Plur\u00ees disappears from the\nstory.\n\n_On their way to court they learn that, while engaged in hunting the\nwhite stag, Guinevere has been carried off by Valer\u00een, and imprisoned\nin a magic castle, surrounded by a dense thicket peopled with all kinds\nof serpents. Tristan, 'der listige Tristan'[20] suggests that they\nshould seek the aid of Malduz[21] or Malduc, the magician, the Lord\nof the Misty Lake (Genibeleten Se), who will enable them to penetrate\nValer\u00een's stronghold. Erec announces that neither he nor Gawain should\ntake part in the expedition as they have respectively slain Malduc's\nfather and brother. Arthur therefore sets forth accompanied by Karjet\n(Gaheriet), Tristan and Lanzelet (this is the order), and are later\njoined by Dodine le Sauvage. By the good offices of the enchanter's\ndaughter, to whom Arthur appeals, Malduc consents to aid them on\ncondition that Erec and Gawain are delivered up to him, to which these\nheroes willingly consent. Malduc then, by means of spells, disperses\nthe serpents guarding Valer\u00een's castle, slays him and his men, and\nwakens Guinevere from the magic slumber into which Valer\u00een has cast\nher._\n\nI have italicised this passage as extremely important for the criticism\nof the story. It will be seen that so far from Lanzelet being the means\nof Guinevere's escape, he plays practically no part in the story, all\nhe does is to accompany the king. The rescuer is Malduc; recourse to\nhim is suggested by Tristan and made possible by the self-sacrifice of\nGawain and Erec; but saving in the discussion as to whether Malduc's\nterms shall or shall not be accepted, Lanzelet's name is not even\nmentioned.[22]\n\nErec and Gawain are cast into prison by Malduc and nearly starved to\ndeath, but are rescued by one hundred of Arthur's knights, headed by\nLanzelet and aided by a giant, Esealt der lange. They all return to\nArthur's court, where great feasts are held.\n\nIbl\u00ees tells her husband of a curious adventure which had befallen\none of the knights: how he had met in a forest a terrible dragon\nwhich, speaking with a human voice, besought a kiss from the knight;\nhe refused and the dragon flew away lamenting. Lanzelet resolves to\ntest the adventure, rides to the forest, finds the dragon, and gives\nthe desired kiss. The monster bathes in a stream at hand, and becomes\na fair maiden, Elidi\u00e2, daughter to the king of Thile; she has been\ntransformed into a dragon for transgressing the rules of _Minne_, and\ncondemned to remain in that form till kissed by the best knight on\nearth. She remains at Arthur's court, where she is made judge of all\ndisputed questions relating to _Minne_.\n\nHere the story of Lanzelet practically ends. He wins back his lands of\nGenew\u00ees without difficulty, promising to treat his subjects better than\nhis father did. He and Ibl\u00ees betake themselves to the heritage of the\nlatter, Beforet, where they receive Arthur and Guinevere with great\npomp. The poem concludes by telling us that they have four children,\nthree sons and one daughter, that they live to see their children's\nchildren, and die both on the same day.\n\nThe poem of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven has scarcely received the attention\nwhich, as a factor in the criticism of the legend, it undoubtedly\ndemands. The questions arising out of it are not only interesting,\nbut, as I shall presently show, in one instance at least, of the\nvery highest importance. The questions may be grouped as (_a_) those\nrelating to the structure and sources of the poem itself; (_b_) those\nwhich affect its relation to the other Lancelot romances. For the\nfirst it is obvious that we are dealing with a poem of very loose\nconstruction; the various parts do not harmonise with each other, and\nno attempt has been made to make them do so. Thus we have no fewer\nthan four love affairs attributed to Lanzelet, and in three out of the\nfour he weds the lady; yet these amours, one of which is subsequent\nto his marriage with Ibl\u00ees, are dropped as of no account. Professor\nFoerster[23] considers that this looseness of construction points to a\nlate date, and that the source of the _Lanzelet_ was a biographical\nromance of the weakest order. According to Professor Foerster the\nclearer the composition, the better knit the incidents, the older the\nromance.\n\nNow it seems to me that there are two orders of ill-constructed\nromances, and that we shall do well to differentiate between them.\nIn one case we have a number of incidents of secondary character,\nobviously borrowed or imitated from those occurring elsewhere, strung\ntogether more or less cleverly on the thread of a hero's individuality.\nThe incidents are all to be found in other romances, and as a rule none\nof them have any suggestion of Celtic or mythic origin. The literary\nstyle is superior to the matter. Such romances are _e.g._ _Rigomer_,\n_Torec_, _Le Chevalier \u00e0 la Manche_. A very favourable example is\n_M\u00e9raugis de Portlesguez_. These are all certainly late romances.\n\nIn the other case we have a romance even more ill-constructed, but\nconsisting not of incidents but of whole short tales, manifestly\nindependent of each other, and some of them of distinctly antique and\nmythic character: the literary style is poor and the whole is less a\nromance, properly speaking, than the material out of which a romance\ncan be evolved. This, I believe, marks an early stage of development,\nand of this we have naturally but few specimens. The _Lanzelet_ is, I\nbelieve, one.\n\nIf I mistake not, the groundwork is a series of _lais_, each complete\nin itself, and having no connection with what precedes or what follows\nit. It is in no real sense a biographical romance, though perhaps it\nmight be called a tentative effort in that direction. The _Mantle_\nepisode certainly formed a single _lai_; the _Fier Baiser_, now found\nwith other adventures, probably originally did so.[24] Certain of\nthe episodes, too, possess a distinctly archaic character, _e.g._ the\ndescription of the fairy's kingdom as a isle of women where no man\npenetrates, a conception much older than the _Fata Morgana_ of the\nprose _Lancelot_; and the description of Guinevere's prison, the magic\nslumber in a fair dwelling, _ein w\u00fcnneclichez haus_, surrounded by a\ndense thicket infested with serpents, is the sleeping beauty story in\nits oldest 'other world' form.[25] The position of Gawain in the story\nis that held by him in the earlier, pre-Lancelot romances.\n\nI cannot accept the suggestion of a biographical _Lancelot_ from which\nboth the _Lanzelet_ and the _Charrette_ were drawn. If we remember\nthat the first mention of Lancelot in Arthurian romance can only be\ntraced to the second half of the twelfth century, it does not seem\nprobable that by 1164 (when, or about when, Chr\u00e9tien wrote his poem) he\ncould have become the hero of a fixed biographical romance. Nor, the\n_motif_ of his _liaison_ with Guinevere once introduced into the story,\nis the compilation of such a version as the _Lanzelet_ subsequently\nprobable. Professor Foerster feels this difficulty, and suggests a\nsolution, which a little more consideration would have shown him to be\nuntenable. On page xlvi. of his introduction to the _Karrenritter_,\nhe says, '_wenn wirklich Kristian zuerst den Ehebruch eingef\u00fchrt hat,\nso ist doch die Annahme zul\u00e4ssig dass Verehrer Arturs und seiner Frau\ndiese neue ehrenr\u00fchrische Erfindung zwar gekannt, aber mit Entr\u00fcstung\nabgewiesen haben, um ja nicht des idealen K\u00f6nigs Ehrenschild zu\nbeschmutzen_.' But a few pages further on the writer himself refers\nto the story of Guinevere and Mordred as told by Geoffrey[26] and\nWace. He must therefore be well aware that there can be no possible\nquestion of Chr\u00e9tien's having _introduced_ the _motif_ of Guinevere's\nfaithlessness; that is one of the oldest and most original features\nof the Arthurian story. The question is _not_, 'Did the queen have a\nlover?'--that was answered in the affirmative long before Chr\u00e9tien's\nday--but, 'When did Lancelot become her lover? Was it through the\nversion of the _Charrette_?' a very different matter.[27]\n\nTaking into consideration the construction of the poem, and the\ncharacter of the contents, I think we are justified in considering the\ncomposition of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven as a collection of _lais_ which\nhave not yet been worked over or taken final literary shape. When the\nscattered Lancelot stories did this, it was under the influence of a\n_motif_ foreign to the original legend, his love for Guinevere. How\nthat came to be introduced into the legend is a matter for separate\nconsideration, but I do not think there is room for doubt that it was\nthis introduction which determined the final and literary form of the\nLancelot story. All conflicting elements, such as the various love\naffairs, were rejected and only the original germ retained.\n\nAnd what was this germ? Authorities will no doubt differ. Some perhaps\nwill say it was the story of Guinevere's imprisonment and rescue, but\nthey must remember that in the _Lanzelet_ this is _not_ the work of\nthe hero. I think myself that the root of the Lancelot tale was simply\na Breton _lai_, relating the theft of a king's son by a water fairy:\nthis seems to be the one abiding and persistent element in the tale,\nall else is uncertain and shifting. Here the hero is Arthur's nephew;\nelsewhere he is but the son of an old ally; at one time his father is\na tyrant, '_chass\u00e9_' by his own people; again he is a noble king, the\nvictim of treachery and a foreign foe. Sometimes Lancelot's mother\nlives to see him restored to his kingdom; sometimes she dies while he\nis yet in the care of the fairy, and never sees her son again. He has\ntwo cousins on the father's side, Bohort and Lionel, and a bastard\nhalf-brother Hector; he has no relations on his father's side, but is\ncousin to Gawain through his mother. He is Guinevere's lover; he is\nnot Guinevere's lover. He is unmarried; he is very much married--three\ntimes at least! He has four children born in wedlock; he has but one\nson, the offspring of a _liaison_. He is the most valiant knight of\nArthur's court; he is scarce worthy of mention. Among all this shifting\ntangle and contradiction, there is but one thing, and one only, fixed\nand certain, he is Lancelot _du Lac_. I do not see how we can avoid the\nconclusion that in this record of his youth we have the one fixed point\nof departure for all the subsequent unfoldings of romance.\n\nNot that this story was always unvarying in its details, on the\ncontrary we find in it marked divergences. Thus in the _Lanzelet_\nthe motive of the theft is clear, the fairy desires a champion and\nprotector for her cowardly son; the motive in the prose _Lancelot_ is\nnot apparent; probably it was a mere capricious fancy for a beautiful\nchild.\n\nAnd if the motive was not always clearly understood, still less so was\nthe character of the fairy. In fact she seems to have considerably\npuzzled the medi\u00e6val romancers. In the first instance the story would\nbe excessively simple, she would probably be such a water-fairy as\nwe find in _Tidorel_, and Ulrich seems to have retained this idea\nwhen he calls her a _Merfeine_ or _Merminne_, but as the _lai_ gained\npopularity, and it became necessary to supply details as to her\nkingdom, etc., it would be supplemented from other legendary sources.\nUlrich's own description, the land of ten thousand maidens where no\nman penetrates, is manifestly the _Meide-land_ which in _Diu Kr\u00f4ne_\nGawain visits, and which is universally admitted to be a remembrance\nof the 'Isle of Women' of old Celtic tradition. It may have touched\nthe Lancelot _lai_ through the medium of the Gawain's story, but\nas a 'property' of old Celtic belief it may well have been known\nindependently. I think it probable that this identification may explain\na very curious passage in _Diu Kr\u00f4ne_, where Kei reproaches Lancelot\nwho has failed in the glove test in the following terms:\n\n    '_er h\u00e2t daz vil rehte erspeht,\n    daz iz di gotinne\n    verkurt an ir minne,\n    diu iu z\u00f4ch in dem s\u00ea_.'--ll. 24517-20.\n\nCertain it is that while the queen of the 'Isle of Women' does not\nappear to be addicted to child-stealing, she does entice, or abduct,\nearthly knights to be her lovers. It is not impossible that a version\nof the _Lancelot_ story, redacted by some one familiar with the real\ncharacter of the kingdom, may have represented him as the queen's\nlover. It is also not impossible, were this the case, that the story of\nthe imprisonment of Guinevere in the other world, a story which, as we\nshall presently see, must have existed at a very early date, may have\nled to her being confused with the queen of that kingdom, and to the\ntransfer of Lancelot's affections from the one to the other.\n\nThe prose _Lancelot_ version is entirely different, and far less\narchaic: there is no real lake, the appearance is but a _mirage_;\nmen are admitted; Lancelot has not only his cousins for companions,\nbut other knights as well. The lady herself is conceived of more as\na mortal versed in enchantment than as a fairy proper. In the _Suite\nde Merlin_ she is identified with the Demoiselle Chaceresse, daughter\nof the King of Northumberland;[28] and in both these romances, the\n_Lancelot_ and the _Merlin Suite_, she is the lover and the betrayer of\nMerlin. It may not be out of place to remark here that the tendency of\nlater romances, as exhibited in the _Suite_ and notably in Malory, is\nto connect the Lady of the Lake rather with Arthur than with Lancelot.\n\nIt may be asked, how did so simple a _lai_ as we here postulate\nattain so great a popularity? The incidents would be few, and the\ncharacters at first probably anonymous.[29] Here, I think, we may\ntake into account a factor hitherto practically ignored, the music\nof the _lais_. As we know they were intended to be sung, and each\nwas connected with its own melody. It would be a truism nowadays to\nsay that the success of a song depends less upon the words than upon\nthe music to which the words are set, and though less true of an age\nin which the songs of the people were also its folk-tales, yet the\ninfluence of music upon the development of popular legends is a point\nwe do ill to ignore. It may help us to solve certain puzzles. Certain\nheroes of course represent what we may call the general stock-in-trade\nof Aryan tradition: their names vary with the lands in which their\ntales are told, but whether Cuchullain or Gawain, Siegfried or\nPerceval, the hero represents a traditional tale which antedates any\nspecial form of recital; such a tale would be assured of welcome, and\npractically independent of musical aid. But in the case of Lancelot\nwe have no such prehistoric tradition, no striking parallels in early\nlegends. Previously unknown, he leaps into popularity, as it were, at\na bound. Even the most ardent adherent of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes cannot\nappeal to the popularity of that writer to help us with a solution,\nfor his Lancelot poem, the _Charrette_, is but seldom referred to\nin contemporary literature. Much of Lancelot's later popularity is\ndoubtless due to his r\u00f4le as the queen's lover; but how account for the\ninitial popularity which caused him to be chosen for that r\u00f4le? I can\nonly explain the phenomenon of a knight, whose very name is unknown\nbefore the middle of the twelfth century, becoming before the end of\nthat century the leading hero of a cycle to which he was originally a\nstranger, by supposing that there was some special charm in the _lai_\noriginally connected with him, by means of which his story took hold of\nthe public fancy. Had that charm been in the _lai_ itself, in word or\nform, then I think it would have been preserved to us. We possess more\nthan one beautiful _lai_, the hero of which, originally independent\nof the Arthurian cycle, became by virtue of his story admitted within\nthe magic precincts. Failing that, I think the charm must have lain\nin the air to which it was wedded, and which so pleased the ears of\nthe hearers that they demanded its repetition, and lengthening, by\nthe addition of episodes foreign to the original tale. Thus other\n_lais_, whose fate had been less happy, might for a time at least\nwin a spurious popularity, till the 'survival of the fittest,' which\noperates in literature as elsewhere, discarded the weaker portions, and\nfixed the outline of the story in the form we know. This theory may or\nmay not be correct, but I can suggest none other that will meet the\nproblems of the case; and at least it has the advantage of offering an\nhypothesis which may be of use in other stories besides the one under\ndiscussion.\n\nBut there is another point in the discussion of Ulrich's poem which\nurgently demands attention. What is the connection between the\n_Lanzelet_ and the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach? A connection\nof some sort there is, and that a fairly close one. Take for instance\nthe passage describing the hero's departure from his magic home for the\nworld of men, a passage extending over two hundred lines (ll. 400-666).\nHe does not know how to sit his horse, how to hold the bridle,[30] or\nuse his weapons; is ignorant of his name and birth; is called _der\nkindische man_ (l. 598), _der namenl\u00f4se tumbe_ (l. 2045), all features\nwhich irresistibly recall Perceval to our mind, but are in no way\ncharacteristic of Lancelot.[31]\n\nThe tourney at which Lancelot makes his first appearance at Arthur's\ncourt has been undertaken between King Lot von Johenis and _Gurnemanz\nden f\u00fcrsten w\u00ees_ (l. 2630). It commences with a vesper play:\n\n    '_engegen der vespereide\n    riten \u00fcber jene heide,\n    dort zw\u00eane, d\u00e2 her dr\u00ee_.'--ll. 2855-7.\n\nIn the _Parzival_, Book II., we read of the tourney before\nKanvoleis that it began with a vesper play:\n\n    '_von P\u00f3yt\u00f3uwe Schyolarz\n    und Gurnemanz de Gr\u00e2h\u00e1rz,\n    die tjostierten \u00fbf dem pl\u00e2n.\n    Sich huop diu vesper\u00eee s\u00e2n,\n    hie riten sehse, dort wol dr\u00ee._'--ll. 295-9.\n\nIn connection with which we may note that both Chr\u00e9tien and Hartmann\nvon Aue spell the name of Gurnemanz with _o_, not with _u_, as does\nWolfram. Other names, some of them peculiar to Wolfram's version,\noccur in the _Lanzelet_, such as Galagandreiss (Galogandres), also\nfound in Hartmann's _Erec_ though not in Chr\u00e9tien; Iw\u00e2n de Nonel, l.\n2935 (_Parzival_, v. 312); Ibl\u00ees, l. 4060 (_Parzival_, xiii. 895).\nUlrich's Ibl\u00ees is connected with the cloister _jaemerlichen urbor_,\nWolfram's with _Terra de L\u00e2bur_; Kailet, l. 6032 (_Parzival_, ii.\n737); Maur\u00een, whose name in each case is similarly qualified, _mit den\nlichten schenkeln her Maur\u00een_, l. 3052, _Mit den schoenen schenkeln\nMaur\u00een_ (_Parzival_, xiii. 1069).[32] In the description of Iweret we\nread, _einen w\u00e2fen roc fuort er und guld\u00een schellen dran er schein ein\nengel niht ein man_, ll. 4428-30, which should be compared with the\ndescription of Karnachkarnanz.\n\n    '_den d\u00fbhte er als ein got get\u00e2n:\n    er'n het \u00ea 'so lichtes niht erkant.\n    \u00fafem t\u00f3we, der w\u00e2penroc erwant.\n    mit guld\u00een schellen kleine_.'--_Parzival_, iii. 175 _et seq._\n\nNow how are all these points of contact to be explained? Scholars are\nagreed in placing the date of Ulrich's poem in the opening years of the\nthirteenth century, therefore anterior to the _Parzival_. Did Wolfram\nborrow from Ulrich? If it were a mere question of a name here and\nthere we might think so, but the points of contact amount to more than\nthis. We have the characteristics of Perceval postulated of Lancelot;\nwe have correspondence in details, even verbal identity; further, the\nprose _Lancelot_, as we shall see, presents other points of contact\nwith Wolfram's poem in details where he differs notably from Chr\u00e9tien.\nIt is not probable that Wolfram, who never alludes to any adventures\nrelated in the _Lanzelet_, and to all appearance knows nothing of the\nhero save the _Charrette_ adventure, should have borrowed from two such\nwidely different versions of his story. The fact that where Lancelot\nappears to have borrowed from the _Perceval_ legend, the borrowed\nmatter is marked by characteristics special to one version of the story\nis, to say the least, curious. If the _Lanzelet_ _really_ preceded the\n_Parzival_--a philological question upon which I am not qualified to\npronounce an opinion--and Ulrich, as is generally supposed, closely\nfollowed his source, only one conclusion seems possible, _i.e._ that\nthat source knew, and quoted, the poem of Kiot. It is significant that\nin the mention of Gurnemanz he is spoken of as _den f\u00fcrsten w\u00ees_, which\nshows that to the writer he was not a mere name, but a well-known\ncharacter, distinguished by the qualities which mark him in the\n_Parzival_.\n\nMy own impression is, however, that Ulrich knew Wolfram's poem, or at\nleast part of it (between the _Lanzelet_ and the last three books of\nthe _Parzival_ there do not appear to be any points of contact). There\nare numberless small coincidences in language and phrase, trifling\nin themselves, but which as a whole seem to argue a familiarity with\nthe words of the _Parzival_. Such a correspondence is more likely on\nthe part of Ulrich than on that of Wolfram, who by his own confession\ncould not read or write, and must have become orally familiar with his\nsource. But it is quite clear that a critical comparison of the two\nworks is urgently needed, both in the interests of Arthurian tradition\nand of German literature. The popular impression, _i.e._ that Wolfram\nmerely borrowed a few names from the _Lanzelet_, will not stand the\ntest of investigation. Two conclusions alone are open, from which we\nmust make our choice: either to admit the existence, beyond any doubt,\nof the French poem, other than Chr\u00e9tien's, which Wolfram declared to\nbe his source;[33] or to place the date of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven some\nfew years later than that usually assigned to him. We await the aid of\nsome one of the many competent scholars Germany possesses to solve this\npuzzle for us.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nLANCELOT ET LE CERF AU PIED BLANC\n\n\nBefore examining Chr\u00e9tien's poem of the _Charrette_, which, whatever\nthe date of composition, belongs by the nature of its contents to the\nlater stages of Arthurian tradition, it will be well to direct our\nattention to a short episodic poem, undoubtedly French in origin,\nbut, so far as we at present know, only to be found in a translation\nincorporated in the vast compilation known as the Dutch _Lancelot_.[34]\nThe contents of the poem are as follows: A maiden arrives at Arthur's\ncourt, attended by a brachet. She is the messenger of a queen who\ndemands a champion to accomplish the following feat: in her land is a\nstag with one white foot, guarded by seven lions; she promises her hand\nto whoever will slay the lions, and present her with the white foot of\nthe stag. The brachet will be guide to any knight who may undertake the\nadventure. Kay announces his intention of being the first to try his\nfortune, and sets out, guided by the dog. After riding some distance\nhe comes to a deep and swiftly flowing river, which the dog promptly\nswims. Kay's courage, however, fails him at the sight of the water,\nand he turns back, feigning a sudden illness, which had prevented him\nfrom pursuing the quest. Lancelot then determines to try his fortune:\nhe sets out, passes the river in safety, and is attacked by the seven\nlions. After a fierce conflict, in which he is desperately wounded, he\nsucceeds in slaying them, and secures the white foot. At this moment a\nstranger knight appears, and Lancelot, exhausted by the fight, gives\nhim the foot, bidding him carry it to the queen, and say that the\nknight who has achieved the adventure lies sorely wounded, and prays\nher aid. The knight promises this, but having received the foot, deals\nLancelot a treacherous blow with his sword, and leaving him for dead\nrides off to the castle, and claims the reward due to the slayer of the\nlions.\n\nThe queen is much distressed, as the knight is both ugly and cowardly,\nand summons her lords and vassals to ask their advice. They recommend\nthat the marriage be postponed for fifteen days, greatly to the\ndisappointment of the knight.\n\nMeanwhile Gawain has become anxious at the non-return of Lancelot, and\nsets forth to seek him. He finds him apparently dead, revives him, and\nconveys him to the dwelling of a physician, whom he instructs as to the\nproper treatment,[35] and then rides himself to the court to punish the\ntreacherous knight.\n\nHe arrives on the eve of the marriage, accuses the knight of his\ntreachery, challenges him to single combat and slays him. The queen\nis much rejoiced at the news. Gawain brings Lancelot to the queen,\nwho regards him as her future husband; but, on the excuse of calling\ntogether his kinsmen for the marriage, Lancelot contrives to leave the\ncountry, 'not for anything in the world would he have been faithless to\nGuinevere.' He and Gawain return to Arthur's court, and the queen is\nleft vainly awaiting her bridegroom.\n\nThis conclusion is of course obviously lame and ineffective. The hero\nshould wed the maiden, whose hand was the previously announced reward\nof successful accomplishment of the feat. That Lancelot undertakes the\nadventure at all can only be explained by supposing that the tale was\nconnected with him previous to his being generally recognised as the\nqueen's lover.\n\nThat he was not the original hero of the tale is proved by the fact\nthat we possess a Breton _lai_ which relates the story in a better and\nmore coherent form, ascribing it to a certain _Tyolet_, whom we do not\nmeet in any of the later Arthurian romances.[36]\n\nThe main points in which the versions differ are: (_a_) the maiden who\ncomes to Arthur's court is herself the prize of the victor. This is\na better version, as it simplifies the action, and accounts for the\nanxiety felt at the absence of the knight, who should have returned to\ncourt at once on achieving the venture. (_b_) Gawain's action (which is\nthe same in both poems, with the exception that instead of his slaying\nthe traitor, Tyolet arrives in time to prevent a combat) is clearly\nexplained; the brachet, which has acted as guide, returns alone to\ncourt, and leads Gawain to the scene of the combat. In the _Lancelot_\nversion it is difficult to understand how Gawain, who had no guide,\nfinds his friend so quickly. (_c_) Tyolet weds the maiden, and returns\nwith her to her own land, where he becomes king.\n\nHere we have an unmistakable instance of a _lai_ originally told of\nanother hero being transferred to Lancelot.\n\nThe story itself, however, seems to be older than its connection\nwith either hero; even in the _Tyolet_ version, superior as it is to\nthe _Lancelot_, the real meaning of the tale appears to have been\noverlooked or misunderstood. In its original form I think it was\nclearly a transformation tale. The stag was the enchanted relative of\nthe princess who sought the hero's aid, and the spell which detained\nhim in animal form could only be broken by the cutting off of the foot.\nWe know that the smiting off of a member of the body (generally the\nhead) is a well-recognised form of terminating an enchantment, and in\nthis case the proposed solution would explain what, in the tale as it\nstands, appears a piece of unredeemed brutality.\n\nA peculiarity of the _Tyolet_ version is that it falls into two\nwell-marked divisions, the first recounting the upbringing of the\nhero, and his arrival at Arthur's court, a tale bearing a marked\naffinity to the Perceval _Enfances_; the second being the 'white-foot'\nadventure. Now in this first part the hero, going into the woods in\nsearch of game, sees and follows a stag, which is transformed into a\nman before his astonished eyes. I suspect that this episode formed the\nconnecting link between the two sections of the _lai_, the real meaning\nof the latter stag not having been lost when the two were united. A\nconfirmation of this theory is found in the fact that one of the\nnumerous 'shape-shifting' changes of Merlin was into the form of a stag\nwith a white fore-foot.[37] I also think this may well be the origin\nof the mysterious white stag guarded by lions which meets us so often\nin later Arthurian story. In the _Queste_ stag and lions change into\nOur Lord and the Four Evangelists, thus preserving the transformation\ncharacter.\n\nBut whatever the original character of the story, it has, in the form\nin which we now possess it, become affected by _a motif_ extremely\npopular in medi\u00e6val times, that of the _False Claimant_. The leading\ncharacteristics of this widely spread tale may be summed up as follows.\nThe hero at great risk to himself performs a feat, and possesses\nhimself of a proof (previously agreed upon) that he has done so. The\ntraitor comes on the scene, possesses himself of the proof (either\nattempting to slay the hero himself or believing him to be already\ndead), and claims the reward; not knowing that the hero has possessed\nhimself of a further proof of his deed. The hero, left for dead,\nrecovers, and appearing at the critical moment, confutes the traitor by\nthe production of the second and decisive proof.\n\nOf this story practically countless variants exist; Mr. E. S. Hartland,\nin his _Legend of Perseus_, vol. iii., has tabulated a large number\ngathered from all parts of the world. The most general version appears\nto be that in which the feat consists in the slaying of a dragon, to\nbe testified by the production of the head. The hero, not content with\ncutting off the head, also cuts out the tongue, and is thus enabled to\nconfute the traitor, who has omitted to look within the monster's jaws.\nIt will be noted that neither in the _Tyolet_ or _Lancelot_ versions\ndoes the hero possess such a proof: in the first instance the impostor\nis put to shame by Tyolet's inquiry as to who slew the lions; in the\nsecond Gawain settles the matter by slaying the traitor. This lack of\nan important feature of the original tale seems to indicate that the\n_lai_ in its primitive form did not belong to this group of stories,\nthough from the character of the feat related the borrowing of features\nfrom so widely known a folk-tale was almost natural development.\n\nA very good example of the _False Claimant_ is found in some versions\nof the _Tristan_ legend, notably the poems of Gottfried von Strassburg,\nand his source, Thomas of Brittany: very few of the prose versions have\nretained it.[38]\n\nM. Gaston Paris seems inclined to connect the 'white-foot' adventure\nwith this. Ultimately, of course, the stories must go back to a common\nsource; but the _Cerf au pied blanc_ presents the adventure in so\ngeneral a form, that one can hardly connect it with any special variant\nof this very widespread folk-tale. The _Tristan_ variant is, as I have\nsaid above, an especially good example, with many well-marked features,\nnone of the more characteristic of which are reproduced in the _lai_.\nBut we have in the same vast compilation the account of another\nadventure of the same character, also ascribed to Lancelot, which does\nappear to be directly drawn from the Tristan story.\n\nIn _Morien_[39] we learn that Morien, Gawain, and Lancelot, seeking\nfor Perceval and Agloval, come to a hermit's cell at four cross-roads.\nThey ask whither the roads lead, and learn that that on the right\nhand leads to a waste land devastated by the ravages of a devil in\nthe form of a beast. Lancelot determines to brave the adventure and,\nin spite of the remonstrances of the hermit, chooses this road. The\nwriter of the tale informs us (but it should be kept in mind that the\nhermit _does not_ tell Lancelot) that the lady of the country has\npromised her hand to whoever will slay the monster. A knight who has\nlong loved her, but is too cowardly to dare the venture, keeps a watch\nupon all those who may attack the beast, with the secret intention of,\nif possible, slaying the victor and taking the credit of the deed to\nhimself. Lancelot arrives at the monster's lair, which is surrounded by\nthe bones of men and animals slain by the fiend. No description of the\ncreature is given, but it is quite clear from the incidental details\nthat the writer conceived of it as a dragon; Lancelot's sword and spear\ncan make no impression on its skin; its claws pierce through shield\nand hauberk and score deep wounds on the knight's body; it breathes\nforth venom, which would have slain Lancelot but for the ring he wore\n(no doubt the ring given him by the Lady of the Lake); finally, as it\nopens its jaws to devour him, the knight thrusts his spear down its\nthroat and pierces the heart. The monster utters a loud cry, which is\nheard over two miles off, and expires. The traitor knight, hearing the\ncry, knows that the monster is slain and rides to the spot. Lancelot\nis binding up his wounds; the traitor approaches, making feint to\naid him, deals him a treacherous blow and leaves him for dead; then\nhe cuts off the foot and is riding away when Gawain appears upon the\nscene and challenges him. Lancelot recovers from his swoon in time\nto bid Gawain slay the traitor, which he does. Before Lancelot can\nrecover from his wounds news comes that the King of Ireland has invaded\nArthur's kingdom, and is besieging the queen in one of her castles.\nLancelot and Gawain go at once to her aid, and nothing is heard of the\nlady whose hand was to have been the reward of the venture. But, as I\nhave noted above, there is no sign that Lancelot knew anything of the\npromised guerdon; his conduct is therefore more intelligible and less\nunchivalrous than in the _lai_.\n\nThe special points of contact with the _Tristan_ story are these:\n(_a_) The nature of the animal, which is undoubtedly in both cases a\ndragon. (_b_) The hero undertakes the adventure unsolicited. Tristan\nlands in Ireland, hears of the dragon's ravages and goes off secretly\nto slay it. He has no thought of winning Iseult for himself. In both\nversions of the _lai_ the lady herself invites the adventure. (_c_)\nThe character of the traitor: in both _Tristan_ and _Morien_ he is\nrepresented as being too cowardly to dare the feat himself but as\nwatching his opportunity to rob a brave man of the fruit of his valour.\nIn the _lai_ variants 'opportunity makes the traitor'; in these two\nversions the traitor is on the watch for his opportunity. (_d_) In both\ncases he is attracted to the spot by the death-cry of the monster. The\nappearance of Gawain, on the other hand, the death of the traitor, and\nthe fact that it is the _foot_ and not, as it should be, the _head_,\nwhich is cut off, clearly show the influence of the _lai_.\n\nThe ending is, of course, unsatisfactory, and it is curious that the\nwriter, who in the details noted above clearly shows a knowledge of\nthe excellent and complete version of the _Tristan_ legend, should\nnot have finished his story more in accordance with that tale. It\nis not impossible that the original adventure as contained in the\n_Morien_ poem _was_ the stag adventure, and that the compiler of the\nDutch _Lancelot_, who evidently possessed an extensive collection of\nArthurian documents, knowing that he was going to relate the story\nlater on, purposely altered the earlier portion more in accordance\nwith the dragon adventure of the Tristan tale, retaining the later\nportion for the sake of the r\u00f4le played by Gawain, who is one of his\nheroes, and who, it is scarcely necessary to say, does not appear in\nthe _Tristan_ legend. Unfortunately we have no other version of the\n_Morien_ save that of the Dutch _Lancelot_, so the question must remain\nundetermined; all we can say with certainty is that the adventure\nas there related is combined from two distinct variants of the same\noriginal _motif_.\n\nAn interesting feature of the _Morien_ story is that it shows the\n_Lancelot_ legend influenced by the _Tristan_ at a point practically\nunconnected with the central _motif_ of that story, the loves of\nTristan and Iseult.\n\nThe story of the _cerf au pied blanc_ as attributed to Lancelot does\nnot appear to have obtained any popularity. In no variant of the prose\n_Lancelot_ is it related, or even alluded to; the version preserved by\nthe Dutch compiler is, so far, the only one that has been discovered.\nBut existing as it does, it clearly points to a date at which the\nLancelot story was still told in isolated _lais_, and before the\nintroduction into the legend of his love for Guinevere. Once fixed as\nGuinevere's lover, we can understand how the tale dropped out of the\ncompleted legend: alter the ending as they might the obstinate fact\nwould remain that Lancelot voluntarily undertook an adventure the\nsuccessful achievement of which would necessitate him becoming the\nhusband of a stranger maiden; it was an _impasse_ from which he could\nonly escape at the cost of an insult to one or the other queen, and\nvery wisely the compilers of his legend ignored the story.\n\nIt also seems probable that the original character of the tale itself\nwas not properly understood by its compilers: an evidence, if evidence\nwere really needed, of the extreme antiquity and, if I may use the\nword, 'unlocalised' character of the elements which went to compose the\nArthurian cycle.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nLE CHEVALIER DE LA CHARRETTE\n\n\nWith the poem, the title of which heads this chapter, we reach a fresh\nstage in the Lancelot tradition, and one which, though it has already\nbeen the subject of acute and scholarly discussion, still presents many\npoints of difficulty.[40]\n\nThe story related in the poem is so well known, and the poem itself\nso accessible, that it is unnecessary to do more than summarise the\nleading features. It is, as we all know, the story of Guinevere's\nabduction by Meleagant, and her rescue by Sir Lancelot.\n\nA knight (Meleagant) appears at Arthur's court, and boasts of the\nBreton subjects he holds in captivity. Arthur can free them if he\nwill commit Guinevere to the care of a knight who will fight a single\ncombat with him; if he (Meleagant) be defeated, all the prisoners shall\nbe freed; if he be victor, Guinevere, too, is his captive. Kay, by\ndemanding from Arthur a boon, the nature of which is unspecified, and\nwhich the king grants before hearing, obtains permission to escort\nthe queen. Gawain follows, meets Kay's horse, riderless and covered\nwith blood, and is then confronted by an unnamed knight (Lancelot),\nwho begs the loan of a steed. Gawain gives him his, and follows on a\nspare steed as quickly as possible, only to find traces of a sanguinary\nconflict, and his own horse slain. He overtakes Lancelot, who, meeting\na dwarf driving a cart, mounts after a momentary hesitation, and the\ntwo continue the pursuit together. Meleagant's land (or rather that\nof his father Baudemagus) is surrounded by deep water, crossed by two\nbridges, one of a sword-blade, the other under the water. Lancelot\nchooses the first, crosses in safety, fights with Meleagant, and frees\nGuinevere, who, however, receives him coldly, being offended at his\nmomentary hesitation before mounting the cart. Lancelot, in despair,\ntries to commit suicide; Guinevere, hearing a rumour of his death, is\noverwhelmed with grief, and on his next appearance receives him with\nthe greatest favour. They pass the night together, Lancelot gaining\naccess to the queen's chamber by means of a heavily barred window,\nand severely wounding his hands in wrenching asunder the bars. The\ntraces of blood on the bed-clothes cause the queen to be accused\nof a _liaison_ with Kay, who, severely wounded, is sleeping in the\nante-chamber. Lancelot undertakes to prove Guinevere's innocence by a\ncombat with Meleagant, which shall take place at Arthur's court; but,\nhaving set out to seek Gawain, is treacherously decoyed into prison\nby his foe. Meleagant, by means of forged letters, persuades the\nqueen that Lancelot has returned to court, whither Guinevere repairs,\nescorted by Gawain, who has meanwhile arrived on the scene. Lancelot,\nwho has been released on parole by his jailor's wife, to attend a\ntourney, is subsequently walled up in a tower by Meleagant, from which\nprison he is released by his rival's sister, and reaching court at the\nlast moment, overcomes and slays Meleagant.[41]\n\nThe capital importance of this poem lies in the fact that here, for\nthe first time, so far as our present knowledge goes, we meet with\nthose relations between Lancelot and the queen which form so important\na part of the completed Arthurian legend. Are these relations, then,\nan invention of Chr\u00e9tien, or were they already familiar to the public\nfor whom he wrote? Here I shall only treat this question incidentally,\ndeferring a full study of the point to a subsequent chapter; the\nquestions which mainly concern us relate rather to the nature (_a_) of\nthe story itself, (_b_) of Chr\u00e9tien's share in its development.\n\nIn the introductory lines we learn that the poem was written at the\ninstance of the Countess Marie de Champagne, who supplied '_Matiere et\nsan_.' I take this to mean that she only supplied a verbal outline of\nthe story, and left it to Chr\u00e9tien to fill in details. Thus, as regards\nsource, Chr\u00e9tien stands in a different position in this poem than in\nhis other romances. In every other instance he had either in _livre_ or\n_conte_[42] (which latter I take to be the recital of a professional\nstory-teller) a fixed source from which he drew his tale.\n\nThe internal evidence agrees with these indications: the _Charrette_\nis far inferior to Chr\u00e9tien's other work; the construction is feeble\nin the extreme, and bristles with contradictions and obscurities. Why,\nfor instance, does Meleagant suggest that Guinevere shall be put in\ncharge of a knight and follow him? Why not challenge a single combat at\nthe court, where there would be a public to see that the rules of such\ncombat were observed? It may be that the original scene of abduction\nwas a wood, and this is an awkward attempt to combine a later version,\n_i.e._ Arthur's court, with a primitive feature; but in any case it\nstarts the story on wrong lines. Gawain (who is also mounted) follows\n_directly_ on Lancelot's track, but before he comes up with him there\nhas been time for a fierce conflict to take place. These conflicts with\na valiant knight do not as a rule terminate so quickly, even though the\nodds be unequal! Gawain, who of course knows Lancelot well, apparently\nfails to recognise him, even when he unhelms for supper. The maiden of\nthe castle warns them against sleeping in a certain bed; whoever does\nso will scarce escape with his life. Lancelot braves the adventure, but\nthe next morning when he is found safe and well, the lady expresses\nno surprise. We are told that the maiden whom Lancelot frees from the\nknight at the ford knows him and _is afraid he will know her_, but no\nexplanation of this is vouchsafed, and her identity is not revealed. We\nare expressly told that the kingdom of Gorres is surrounded by a water\nwhich none may pass, but before Lancelot even arrives at the water and\nbridge he is in the kingdom of Gorres, peopled by captive Bretons. No\nexplanation is given of how Guinevere knew of Lancelot's hesitation to\nmount the cart; there was no witness but the dwarf, and if he noted so\nmomentary an indecision he must have had a curiously keen appreciation\nof the rules of _Minne_; and how did he come to see Guinevere? But\nperhaps it was a case of telepathy. In the same manner Kay becomes\nmysteriously aware of what has passed between Lancelot and the queen.\nAnd these instances might be indefinitely multiplied. Chr\u00e9tien's\n_Lancelot_ is scarcely less incoherent than Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's;\nand we begin to wonder if there were not some inherent weakness in the\nlegend itself, which rendered it impossible for any one to give an\nintelligible account of the hero's proceedings.[43]\n\nI think it is clear that the decided inferiority of the _Charrette_ as\ncompared with Chr\u00e9tien's other poems is due to the deficiencies of his\nsource. He was left in the lurch, and his genius was not of a nature\nto extricate him from his difficulties. When he had before him a story\nthe form of which was already practically fixed, and which required\npolishing rather than rearrangement, Chr\u00e9tien could put it into\ncharming language, and make a finished and artistic piece of work out\nof a simple original. I should express the charm of his work as being\nthat he clad the folk-tale in the garments of the court, and taught\nit to move easily in its foreign trappings. But when his materials\nwere scanty, and he was called upon to supplement them from his own\nimagination, he was unequal to the task; and he was artist enough to\nknow it, and to leave unfinished a work which did him little credit,\nwhile he turned to one the nature of which precisely suited his special\ntalent. It is not, I think, without significance that the best of\nChr\u00e9tien's poems follows immediately on his worst. He had a reputation\nto retrieve, and he did it gallantly in the _Yvain_.\n\nNor is Chr\u00e9tien really successful in depicting lovers as lovers: they\nare little more than lay figures; they talk at great length, and\nindulge in analysis of their feelings, expressed in the most graceful\nand ingenious language; but one\n\n    '_Iseut ma drue, Iseut m'amie,\n    En vous ma mort, en vous ma vie!_'\n\nis worth all Chr\u00e9tien ever wrote on the subject; the breath of the god\nis not in it. Yet, so far as the _Charrette_ goes, this is scarcely\nto be laid to his blame. Nowhere, save perhaps in one chapter of\nMalory, is there the least ring of reality in the loves of Lancelot and\nGuinevere. They go through all the prescribed gestures of their r\u00f4le\nwith admirable precision. Guinevere is by turns gracious, disdainful,\nfrantically jealous, and repentant of her jealousy; Lancelot is\ncourteous, humble, despairing, hopeful: their relation to each other\nis all that _Minne dienst_ can require between a knight and his lady,\nbut nowhere in the whole wearily drawn-out story does the real, pent-up\nhuman feeling break through. We can never imagine these two taking one\nanother by the hand and wandering off into the wilderness, content, and\nmore than content, with each other's presence. The story of Lancelot\nand Guinevere is artificial, not natural; it demands the setting of\nthe court, not of the woodlands. Only in the passage where Malory\ndescribes their parting do they, for a moment, become real; and the\neffect produced is probably due to the simplicity of the old knight's\nlanguage, and the virile force of the English tongue.\n\nNor do I think that these relations are due to Chr\u00e9tien. He treats them\nas an already established fact, well known to his readers, and needing\nno explanation. Certain episodes of the poem, the finding of the comb,\nthe testing of the knight's fidelity to the queen by the lady in whose\ncastle he passes the night, presuppose a state of things generally\nfamiliar. Every one knows who Lancelot is; every one will know why he,\nand no other knight, shall rescue the queen.\n\nThat there was a previous story of Guinevere's rescue from imprisonment\nunder analogous circumstances is quite clear: the references found in\nthe Arthurian romance are too numerous, and too archaic in form to\nbe derived from a poem so late in date, so artificial in character,\nand so restricted in popularity as the _Charrette_. Of this story we\nhave at least three distinct accounts: (_a_) that given by Ulrich von\nZatzikhoven, where the 'other-world' character of the imprisonment\nis strongly marked, but the rescue is the work of an enchanter, and\nnot of Arthur or any of his knights; (_b_) that given in the _Vita\nGild\u00e6_, when the abductor is Melwas, king of _\u00c6stiva Regis_ (Somerset),\nthe place of imprisonment Glastonbury, and there is again no special\nrescuer, Arthur marches at the head of his armies to her relief, but it\nis the intervention of St. Gildas and the Abbot of Glastonbury which\nbrings about the desired result; (_c_) the account given in the poem\nunder discussion.[44]\n\nOf these three variants the version of the Lanzelet stands by\nitself; it represents the 'other-world' under an entirely different,\nand probably more primitive, aspect, and makes no effort at\nlocalisation.[45] The other two variants fall together, Melwas, the\nking of _\u00c6stiva Regis_, which is admittedly Somerset=Meleagant of\nGorres, whose chief city is _Bade_=Bath, also in Somerset. These\nlater versions have been localised, and I think it is clear that the\nlocalisation took place on English soil, _i.e._ it is an insular and\nnot a continental variant.\n\nNow, from the very nature of the story it is clear that in its\n_earliest_ forms it would not be attributed to any special locality,\nand therein the _Lanzelet_ version again appears to be the elder;\nfurther, the variants must have arisen at a time when it was clearly\nunderstood that, however they might apparently differ, Valer\u00een's\nthorn-girt dwelling and Meleagant's water-circled castle meant one\nand the same thing, _i.e._ that both were recognised methods of\ndescribing the 'other-world.' In this connection it is instructive to\nrecall the versions of Brynhild's wooing by Siegfried; her residence\nis universally admitted to be an 'other-world' dwelling, and we find\nit depicted under forms closely corresponding with the variants of\nthe Guinevere story; _e.g._ Waberlohe (_Volsunga saga_)=Valer\u00een's\nhedged magic slumber; Castle surrounded by water (_Thidrek saga_) =\nMeleagant's stronghold; Glasberg (_Folk-songs_)=Glastonbury. The\nparallelism is significant.[46]\n\nIt is quite clear, I think, that such a story can be in no way ascribed\nto the invention of a poet living towards the end of the twelfth\ncentury, but must be of very much earlier date. Chr\u00e9tien was dealing\nwith a late variant of a primitive and very widely known theme. But\ncould this variant, which, as seems probable, only reached him through\nthe medium of a tale related by the Countess Marie of Champagne, have\ncome from England, to which country the localisation of Glastonbury,\nSomersetshire, and Bath point? It is quite possible. We must remember\nwho Marie de Champagne was: she was a princess of France, the daughter\nof King Louis VII. and Eleanor of Aquitaine, who, on her divorce from\nthe French king, married Henry of Normandy, afterwards Henry II.\nof England. That is, at the time Chr\u00e9tien wrote, the mother of his\nprotectress was Queen of England and wedded to a sovereign who took\na keen and personal interest in all that concerned King Arthur. The\n_possibility_ of transmission is as clear as daylight; the question\nof course is, Would Marie be inclined to take advantage of it? The\nrelations between her father and his divorced wife were certainly\ncurious, as Louis made no objection to the marriage of the eldest son\nof Henry and Eleanor with his daughter by his second marriage, but\nwhether there was intercourse between mother and daughter I have not\nbeen able to discover. But the question ought to be easily solved by\nsome historical specialist who has made a study of that period. The\npoint is interesting and important, and it is to be hoped some one will\nclear it up for us.\n\nA question of secondary interest is whether Chr\u00e9tien's poem is the\nsource of contemporary and later allusions to the story. Of such\nallusions, or rather versions, we have two of special importance, that\ncontained in Malory's compilation, and that given by Hartmann von Aue,\nin his _Iwein_. With regard to the former, I can only say that though\nI am in a position to offer new and important evidence with regard to\nthe manuscript Malory used, and his method of composition, yet that\nevidence leaves the _Charrette_ question unsolved. Of _direct_ evidence\nthere is none; the _indirect_ and _inferential_ evidence tends to\nshow that Malory's source was _not_ the poem of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes.\nThe two points on which we can be certain are, (_a_) that Malory did\nnot know the earlier part of the prose _Lancelot_ at all, that his\nmanuscript began at a point subsequent to the _Charrette_ adventure;\nand (_b_) that he does not invent adventures, and but rarely details.\nDr. Sommer's conclusions, as set forth in his _Study on the Sources of\nMalory_, are founded on very insufficient premises, and will need to\nbe thoroughly revised to bring them into accordance with our present\nknowledge. This question I shall discuss fully in a later section. The\n_Iwein_ version is of great importance, and though I have previously\nreferred to it,[47] yet in the light of Professor Foerster's strongly\nrepeated assertion that Hartmann knew no other version of the story\nthan that given by Chr\u00e9tien, I think it is worth while going over the\nevidence again.\n\nIt must be remembered that Hartmann's _Iwein_ is a translation of\nChr\u00e9tien's _Chevalier au Lion_, and though rather more diffuse, follows\nits source closely. In the French poem which, as we have noted above,\nimmediately succeeded the _Charrette_, Chr\u00e9tien deftly introduces more\nthan one allusion to Guinevere's abduction. He says that Guinevere\nhas been carried off by a knight _d'estrange terre_, who went to the\ncourt to demand her; but he would not have succeeded in carrying her\noff had it not been for Kay, who deceived or deluded (_anbricona_) the\nking into putting the queen in his charge (ll. 3916-39). In another\nplace, he says that the king, '_Fist que fors del san Quant apr\u00e9s\nlui l'an anvoia. Je cuit que keus la convoia Jusqu'au chevalier qui\nl'an mainne_' (ll. 3706-11). Now, let us suppose that, as Professor\nFoerster insists, Hartmann had not read the _Charrette_ and knew no\nother version of the story, what would he, who knew French well, and\ntranslates without blunders and confusion, understand by this? We must\nnote particularly what Chr\u00e9tien tells and what he omits. He distinctly\nsays that the knight came to the court and demanded the queen (the\nreal version of the poem is less blunt, as we have seen); that Arthur,\ndeluded, put the queen in Kay's charge to lead her to the knight, and\nthat they followed him. He does _not_ say that the whole catastrophe\ncame about through Arthur's granting a boon before he knew in what it\nconsisted; he implies that the folly lay in Arthur's sending the queen\nafter the knight, not in the circumstances which forced him to do so.\n\nNow what does Hartmann say? In his version a knight appeared before\nArthur and demanded a boon, the nature of which he refused to specify\nbeforehand. Arthur granted it. It was that he should carry off the\nqueen. This he did. The knights armed and followed. Kay was the first\nto overtake him, and was struck from his horse with such violence that\nhis helmet caught in a tree and he hung suspended. He was not carried\noff captive. One after another all the knights are vanquished, and the\nqueen carried off. Gawain is not at court; he returns the next day, and\ngoes in search of the queen. Lancelot is not mentioned throughout; and\nthe inference is that Gawain frees her.\n\nWhat is specially noticeable in this account is that Hartmann agrees\nwith Chr\u00e9tien in the very feature which the French poet does _not_\nspecify, _i.e._ the cause of the queen's abduction--a boon rashly\ngranted, though he transfers the asking from Kay to the knight; while\nhe differs from Chr\u00e9tien in the feature which he _does_ specify, _i.e._\nthat Kay takes Guinevere _after_ the knight. Further, he adds details\nwhich would clear up some of the inconsistencies in Chr\u00e9tien's own\naccount: _i.e._ if Gawain were not present at the time, and all the\nknights followed one after the other and were defeated by Meleagant,\nwe can quite understand that when Gawain returned the next day and\nfollowed on the trail, he _would_ find traces of the severe and bloody\nconflict for which Chr\u00e9tien's version leaves no room. On the face of\nit, Hartmann's version is much the more logical and coherent of the\ntwo. I have remarked above on the extreme awkwardness of the action at\nthe outset of the story; that Meleagant should carry off Guinevere by a\nruse similar to that employed by Gand\u00een in the _Tristan_ poems is far\nmore in accordance with medi\u00e6val tradition. If Hartmann's divergence is\na mere 'invention,' he not only deserves praise for his sagacious skill\nin constructing a story,[48] but excites admiration for the acuteness\nwhich enabled him to detect the leading _motif_ of the adventure to\nwhich his source afforded absolutely no clue.\n\nWolfram von Eschenbach's references to the _Charrette_ adventure are\ncurious; at first sight it seems certain that he is referring to\nChr\u00e9tien's poem, but on closer examination the matter is not so clear.\nThus he says that Lancelot crossed the sword-bridge, fought with\nMeljakanz (Meleagant), and freed Guinevere--all of which agree with\nChr\u00e9tien.[49] But, on the other hand, he mentions Kay's suspension\non the tree (Hartmann's version), and does not know that Meleagant\nwas slain by Lancelot, or that the captive Bretons were freed by his\ncoming--both Meleagant and the Breton knights are fighting at the\ntournament of Beaur\u00f6sch.[50] Indeed, Wolfram appears to know far more\nof these latter than can be gathered from Chr\u00e9tien's poem. Of course,\nwe cannot here say whether these references are due to Wolfram or to\nhis source, which, as recent research has clearly shown, was certainly\nthe work of a man of varied and extensive learning.[51] Nor is it at\nall clear that Wolfram knew Lancelot as Guinevere's lover; he simply\nsays that her imprisonment grieved him '_im was gevancnisse leit, die\nfrou Gin\u00f2v\u00ear dolte_,' which might be postulated of any loyal servant of\nArthur's. Again when, at the beginning of Book xii., the poet recites\nGawain's love-sorrows, he compares his pains first to those suffered\nby various heroes in the achievement of knightly deeds in general, and\nthen rehearses the parallel cases of sundry lovers. In the first list\nLancelot and the sword-bridge appear in company with Iwein and the\nfountain, and Erec and the '_Schoie de la kurt_' adventure, neither of\nwhich were undertaken for the sake of love (why Garel slew the lion\nand fetched the knife, we do not know), but among the lovers he and\nGuinevere are not mentioned.\n\nTaking into consideration the fact that the story is, by its very\nnature, far older than any literary form we possess; that there was\ncertainly in existence one version at least other than Chr\u00e9tien's\n(proved by the _Lanzelet_); and that Chr\u00e9tien's source was avowedly\nan _informal_ one, I do not think it impossible that in the poems of\nHartmann and Wolfram we have references to the original form of the\nstory of which Chr\u00e9tien had only an incomplete knowledge. Hartmann's\nversion is certainly not drawn from the _Charrette_; in Wolfram's case\nwe can only give the verdict '_not proven_.'\n\nIn the whole investigation I think we can only consider two points as\nsatisfactorily settled: the original character of the story, and the\nfact that Lancelot was not at first the hero of the adventure.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE POSITION OF CHR\u00c9TIEN DE TROYES IN THE ARTHURIAN CYCLE\n\n\nAt the stage which we have now reached in our examination of the\n_Lancelot_ legend, it is, I think, imperative to form a clear idea of\nthe position which, in the great body of Arthurian literature, shall\nbe assigned to the author of the romance we have last studied. On the\nquestion of the literary excellence of Chr\u00e9tien's handling of his\nmaterial all are more or less agreed, but the problem of his relation\nto his sources, the question whence he drew the stories he told with\nsuch inimitable grace and felicity, is one which has long provoked a\nlively interchange of argument. The romances of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes\nform one of the chosen battlegrounds of widely differing schools of\nArthurian criticism.\n\nInasmuch as during the varying fortunes of a long-continued conflict\nthe elementary principles underlying the views respectively advocated\nhave a tendency to become obscured, and gradually misunderstood, it\nis well that from time to time they should be clearly and formally\nre-stated, in the light of such knowledge as recent investigation\nmay have cast upon them. We are then in a better position to judge\nwhether they retain, unimpaired, the force and cogency their adherents\nhave ascribed to them. Professor Foerster has apparently felt this\nnecessity, and, impelled by it, has, in the introduction to his edition\nof the _Charrette_, given to the world what he evidently intends us\nto regard as his matured and final conclusion on the question of the\nsource of Arthurian dramatic tradition.\n\nDoubtless a similar statement from some leading scholar among the many\nwho hold views differing from Professor Foerster will be forthcoming;\nin the meantime the present study appears to me to offer an excellent\nopportunity for the re-statement of certain principles, and the\nreiteration of certain facts, which cannot safely be left out of\nconsideration in such a study, and which Professor Foerster's argument\npractically ignores.\n\nTo understand the position of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes to his sources,\nwhatever they may have been, we must, in the first place, have\npossessed ourselves of the answer to two leading questions. (_a_) What\nis the nature of the Arthurian tradition itself? (_b_) What was the\npopular form assumed by that tradition at the time Chr\u00e9tien wrote?\nThese are the main points, but they, of course, involve subsidiary\nissues.\n\nGenerally speaking, the tendency of the school represented by Professor\nFoerster is to regard the Arthurian tradition as divided into two\nbranches, historic and romantic. The former branch being _primarily_\nrepresented by the _Historia_ of Geoffrey of Monmouth, the popularity\nof which practically introduced Arthur to the literary world, and\n_secondarily_ by certain passages in the earlier prose romances. This\nbranch contains features of _insular_ origin, reminiscences of the\nhistoric Arthur and his fights with the Saxons; but the second and\nfar more important branch, the romantic, is of purely _continental_\norigin. Arthur, as a romantic hero, is the product of Breton tradition\nand folk-lore; Armorica, and not Wales, is the cradle of Arthurian\n(romantic) legend; and it was Geoffrey's _Historia_ which gave the\nrequisite impulse to the formation of this tradition.\n\nSo much for theory, what now are the facts?\n\nWithout in any way minimising the popularity and influence of\nGeoffrey's work, either in its original form or in the translation\nof Wace, it is quite clear (_a_) that it did not represent _all_ the\nhistoric tradition current concerning Arthur; (_b_) that his popularity\nwas of considerably earlier date. A comparison with the _Brut_ of\nLayamon[52] will prove the first point; for the second, we have already\nnoted Professor Rajna's discovery of Arthurian names in Italian\ndocuments as proving that such names must have been popular in Italy\nat the end of the eleventh century. Further, from the testimony of the\nbas-relief at Modena we see that the traditions associated with the\nBritish king were not purely historic, but that he and his knights were\nalready the heroes of tales which have not descended to us. We cannot,\ntherefore, fix with any approach to certainty the date at which Arthur\nbecame a romantic hero, but evidence points to a period anterior to\nthat generally admitted.\n\nThen ought we not to distinguish between _romantic_ and _mythic_?\nProfessor Foerster's arguments appear to me to ignore Arthur as\na _mythic_ hero. Romance and myth are not the same thing; though\ntheir final developments are apt to overlap, their root origins are\ndistinctly different.\n\nThe mythic element in Arthurian legend cannot be ignored--in fact, it\nis practically admitted; but some scholars appear to lose sight of\nits character. Yet if that character be rightly apprehended it will,\nI think, be recognised that the distinguishing features are not due\nto any demonstrable Armorican element; that the connection of Arthur\nwith Celtic myth must have taken place on _insular_ rather than on\n_continental_ ground. Thus while Arthur may, or may not, represent the\n_Mercurius Artusius_ of the Gauls, it is not possible to deny that he,\nand at least one of his knights, Gawain, stand in very close relation\nto early Irish mythic tradition. The persistence of Irish elements in\nthe Arthurian story is not a theory but an established _fact_. Where\nwould these stories, Arthurian and Irish, be most likely to meet and\nmingle, in Great Britain, or in Armorica? The first is _a priori_\nthe more probable; not only is the distance less, but we know that\nduring the centuries between the life of the historic Arthur and the\nappearance of Arthurian story a constant interchange of population went\non between Ireland and the northern parts of the British Isles. The\nconclusion at which we should naturally arrive would be that stories\nin which the Celtic element was presented under a form identical with\nearly Irish tradition would reach Brittany _vi\u00e2_ Great Britain, and\nwould not be of Armorican origin.\n\nAnd this conclusion is strongly supported by the facts. We have\ntwo remarkable stories told of Gawain, both of which find striking\nparallels in early Irish legend, both are excellently preserved in\ninsular versions, neither is adequately represented by any known\ncontinental text. I allude of course to _Sir Gawain and the Green\nKnight_ and _The Marriage of Sir Gawain_.[53]\n\nOf the first the existing French versions are, one and all, poor;\nimmensely inferior to the English poem, and showing in certain cases,\nnotably in _Perceval li Gallois_, a manifest lack of comprehension\nof the story. The German version, _Diu Kr\u00f4ne_, is preferable to any\nof the French, but in no case is the story so well and fully told\nas in the English poem, which cannot possibly be derived from any\nknown continental source. Of the main point of the second story, the\nwedding of a young knight to a 'Loathly Lady,' the French poems have\nno trace, though some seem to have retained a confused remembrance of\nthe transformation of a hideous hag into a maiden of surpassing beauty.\nMr. Maynadier, in his study of all the known variants, pronounces\nunhesitatingly for the direct dependence of the English upon the Irish\ntradition.[54]\n\nIn the first story, the Green Knight, the original hero of the\nbeheading challenge, is Cuchulinn, who, if he does not himself\nrepresent a god, is certainly the son of a god. In the second the lady\nis 'the sovereignty,' and through granting her request the hero obtains\nthe sovereignty of Ireland.\n\nBoth are thus distinctly mythical in character; and though the\nEnglish versions, as we now possess them, are of comparatively late\ndate, in neither case can the Irish version be later than the eleventh\ncentury, while the internal evidence points a period anterior to the\nintroduction of Christianity.\n\nLet us take another instance, the story of Guinevere's abduction and\nrescue. Of purely mythical origin, the story was at first unlocalised,\nbut when localised it is on insular and not on continental ground.\nTo say, as Professor Foerster does,[55] that the mention of Bath is\nno proof of an insular source simply shows that the writer has not\ngrasped the real facts of the case. The mention of Bath does not cover\nthe whole ground, it must be taken in connection with _\u00c6stiva Regis_\n(Somerset) and Glastonbury. The latter is, if I mistake not, the real\npoint of identification. A confusion between Glastonbury, Avalon,\nand the abode of the departed had taken place previous to William of\nMalmesbury: the exact date cannot be ascertained, but M. Ferd. Lot\nconsiders the author of the identification to have been an Irish monk\nwriting in the tenth century. In a subsequent note M. Lot further\nidentified Melwas=Meleagant, whom all scholars admit to be a king of\nthe other-world, with the Irish 'king of the dead,' _Tigern-Mas_, of\nwhich name he considers Mael-was to be the Welsh translation.[56]\n\nNow it seems to me quite obvious that the connection of the king of the\nother-world with the place looked upon as the special dwelling of the\ndeparted must have _preceded_ his being considered as lord also of the\nsurrounding lands, _i.e._ Tigern-Mas=Maelwas must have been connected\nwith Glastonbury=Avalon _before_ he was thought of in connection with\nBath and _\u00c6stiva Regis_. It is most probable that such a connection\nwould take place on _insular_ not on _continental_ ground, and as a\nmatter of fact the only text which connects Melwas with Glastonbury,\nthe _Vita Gild\u00e6_, is an insular text, as is that which connects\nGlastonbury with Avalon. Here, too, again, if M. Lot be right, we find\nIrish influence at work.\n\nIt is probable that we may be able to add to this list the story of\nArthur's fight with the demon cat. The story is certainly told in a\ncontinental text (_Merlin_), and located on continental ground, but the\nidentification of the monster with the _Cath Palug_ of Welsh tradition\nand that again with the mysterious _Chapalu_ of French romance depends\non insular evidence.[57]\n\nIn his notice of Herr Freymond's monograph[58] M. Gaston Paris suggests\nthat the source will be found to be 'un trait sans doute fort ancien,\nde mythologie celtique, que Gaufrei de Monmouth n'a pas accueilli';\nwhile M. Loth, in a note appended to this critique, remarks that the\noriginal vanquisher of the cat was certainly not Arthur but Kay. The\nlocalisation of the story in Savoy, Herr Freymond considers to have\nbeen due to the narration of pilgrims, and discusses the relations of\nthe houses of Savoy and Flanders with our Anglo-Norman kings.\n\nHere then we have a group of stories, possessing a distinctive\n(Celto-mythic) character, all of which are either better preserved,\nsolely retained, or originally localised in these islands; _i.e._\nthe evidence of facts is here in favour of an insular rather than a\ncontinental origin. Nor do I think we shall be wrong if we ascribe a\ndecided importance to the fact that the tales told in these islands\nappear to have been of a mythic rather than of a romantic character.\n\nGranting then, that at Chr\u00e9tien's time, and long previous, there was\ncurrent a body of tradition, historic, mythic, romantic, dealing with\nthe British king, how was it handed down, and in what shape did he\nfind it? Of course it will generally be admitted that for a long time\nthe transmission of such stories would be entirely--in Chr\u00e9tien's days\nit would still be partially--oral.[59] But in saying this we must\nhave a clear idea of what, in the case of traditional stories, oral\ntransmission implies. It does _not_ mean a game of 'Russian scandal,'\nwhere the point is to see how much a story told from mouth to mouth can\nbe made to vary from its original form in the process; professional\nstory-_tellers_ were, and are, more conservative than story-_writers_.\nThe tales crystallise into certain formul\u00e6 of incident and expression\nwhich survive often after the real signification has been forgotten.[60]\n\nIn the words of a recognised authority on folk-lore: 'Among many\npeoples the _ipsissima verba_ of traditional tales are insisted upon;\nthe form, and even the details of the form, are often as much a part\nof the tradition as the substance of the tale.'[61] Therefore when we\nfind two stories of marked traditional and folk-lore character agreeing\nwith each other in sequence of incident, detail, and even words, we do\nnot necessarily conclude that the versions are connected by borrowing:\nthey may be, but it is at least equally possible that they represent\nindependent versions of the same oral original.\n\nThis is, of course, well understood by the folk-lore student; but\nunfortunately it is too often ignored by the literary critic, who is\ntoo prone to devote attention to the literary form, while he ignores\nthe essential character of the story. Yet in solving the problem of\nsources it is this latter which is the determining factor.\n\nIn examining into the sources of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes it is well to\nremember that it is easy to exaggerate the necessity for a literary\nsource; it is difficult to exaggerate the conservative tendencies of a\nprofessional story-teller of that date.\n\nBut besides the Arthurian legend proper, there was also current in\nChr\u00e9tien's time a great mass of popular folk-lore, which, certainly on\nthe Continent, probably also on our island,[62] was told, or rather\nsung, in the form of mythical tales or _lais_. These _lais_, in the\nfirst instance in the Breton tongue, and independent of the Arthurian\ncycle, were later translated into French eight-syllabic verse, and\nlargely Arthurised--if I may use the word.\n\nThe process in vogue appears to have consisted of two stages: in\nthe first, the king at whose court the events took place (himself\ngenerally anonymous) was identified with Arthur; in the second stage,\nthe original hero was replaced by one of Arthur's knights. Among the\nspecimens which have been preserved we have examples of all the\nstages: _lais_ entirely independent of Arthur; _lais_, the scene of\nwhich is laid at Arthur's court; _lais_ in which the hero is one of\nArthur's knights; but one and all are in the same metre, that of\nChr\u00e9tien's poems. Of an intermediate French form we have no trace.\n\nThe _lai_ of _Tyolet_, to which we have previously referred, is an\nexcellent example of this gradual 'Arthurisation.' As we have it, the\ncourt at which the events take place is that of Arthur, the loyal\nfriend of the hero is Gawain, but nowhere else do we meet with Tyolet\nas one of Arthur's knights: the inference is that we have here a _lai_\nin the first stage of assimilation. The _lai_ consists of two parts;\nthe latter half, the stag adventure, is found in a separate form, but\nhere the hero is one of Arthur's most famous knights, Lancelot--the\nprocess of assimilation is complete.\n\nThe first part of the _lai_ has many features which recall the\nmore famous 'Perceval' _Enfances_. That _Tyolet_ is anterior to\nthe evolution of the Lancelot story we have shown above[63]; the\nprobability is that it is also anterior to the great popularity of\nthe _Perceval_ story. When Perceval was once universally recognised\nas the son of the widowed lady of the forest, there would be little\nprobability of the tale being told of a hero practically unknown to\nArthurian story. His adventures taken over by more famous knights,\nTyolet disappeared from the roll of heroes.\n\nAgain, among the _lais_ we have an important group dealing with the\nmain idea of a knight beloved by the wife of his lord, rejecting her\nadvances, incurring her displeasure, and finally departing to fairyland\nwith a fairy bride. Of this story we have three important variants,\nagreeing in their main features but differing in detail: the _lais_ of\n_Graalent_, _Guingamor_, and _Lanval_. Of these three, the scene of the\ntwo first is laid at the court of an anonymous king; the action of the\nthird, translated by a contemporary of Chr\u00e9tien, passes at the court\nof Arthur. But, though the _lai_ of _Guingamor_ has only reached us in\nits earlier and independent form, Chr\u00e9tien himself refers to it in an\nArthurised version. He brings Guingamor to Arthur's court, and says of\nhim,\n\n    '_de l'Isle d'Avalon fu sire.\n    De cestui avons o\u00ef dire\n    Qu'il fu amis Morgain la fee,\n    Et ce fu veritez provee._'--_Erec_, ll. 1955-8.\n\nM. Ferd. Lot[64] suggests that the identification is probably due\nto Chr\u00e9tien himself, but if we examine the passage closely I do not\nthink we shall find it to be so. It occurs in a list of knights who\nvisit Arthur's court for the marriage of Erec. The passage immediately\npreceding deals with a certain Maheloas of l'Ile de Voirre.[65] He then\nnames two brothers, Graislemier de Fine Posterne and Guingamor. The\nfirst named is generally identified as Graalent-Mor, the hero of the\n_lai_ to which I have referred above.\n\nThe fact that Chr\u00e9tien makes the two knights brothers clearly indicates\nthat he knew the close kinship existing between their stories; but\nwhy, if dealing with a free hand, he should have made Guingamor, and\nnot Graalent, the lord of Avalon it is difficult to say. If free to\nchoose we should have expected the latter; the _lai_ of _Graalent_\nstands in far closer connection with that of _Lanval_ (being a variant\nof the same story) than with that of Guingamor; and Lanval weds the\nmistress of Avalon. Or, since both were brothers, both might have\nbeen represented as dwelling in that mystic island which had not one\nqueen alone as its denizen but nine. The real explanation alike of the\nconnection and the separation of the two knights appears to me to be\nthat Chr\u00e9tien knew the one _lai_, and not the other, in an Arthurised\nform.\n\nCertainly it seems more probable that the gradual assimilation by the\n_lais_ of an Arthurian character would, so far as the Continent is\nconcerned, take place on Breton rather than on French grounds. They are\noriginally Breton _lais_; Arthur is a Breton,[66] not a French, hero;\nwhere would Breton folk-lore and Breton traditionary romance be more\nlikely to coalesce than in the home of both? I do not myself believe\nthat such coalition was the work either of Marie de France or Chr\u00e9tien\nde Troyes.\n\nIn any case it is beyond the shadow of a doubt that when Chr\u00e9tien\nwrote his first Arthurian poem there was already afloat a vast body\nof popular folk-lore connected with the Arthurian legend, and existing\nunder the form of short poems in rhymed, eight-syllabic verse, the same\nmetre, in fact, as that adopted by Chr\u00e9tien himself. It is also certain\nthat he knew these _lais_; highly probable that he knew some of them,\nas his contemporary Marie de France did, in their Arthurised form. As\nwe shall see presently, there is strong ground for the presumption that\nfor the main incident of his most famous poem, _Yvain_, he was indebted\nto such a _lai_.\n\nNow, without accepting the mechanical theory of Herr Brugger,[67]\nwhich would make the first Arthurian romances consist of _continental\nlais_ automatically strung together, I certainly think that the _lais_\nplayed a more important part in the evolution of these romances than\nwe generally realise. In a previous chapter[68] I have indicated what\nwould probably be the method of procedure. The original _lai_ would\nbe expanded by the introduction of isolated adventures; other _lais_,\nwhich through demerit of style or music had failed to win popularity,\nwould be drawn upon for incident, or incorporated bodily; one or more\npopular _lais_ would be added, and the whole worked over and polished\nup into a complete and finished romance. At first the parts would hang\nbut loosely together, and there would be a good deal of re-selection\nand discarding of incident before the work crystallised into shape,\nthough the form of the _original_ tale, which was the kernel of the\nsubsequent romance, would not be likely to vary much.\n\nThe _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven is, as I suggested above,\nan example of a romance arrested in development: the kernel of the\nwhole can be detected, but the parts fit badly, and it has never been\nreally worked up into shape. But, unless I am much mistaken, we have\nin the Welsh tale of _The Lady of the Fountain_ a specimen of the\nsame process at work, of capital importance for critical purposes,\nsince we also possess the completed work, _i.e._ the Mabinogi has\npreserved Chr\u00e9tien's _Yvain_ _in process of making_. The adventures are\npractically identical, sequence and incident agree in the main, but in\nthe Welsh version they are much more loosely connected, and there are\nsignificant breaks which seem to show where the successive redactions\nended. If we follow the indications of the version we shall conclude\nthat _as first told_ the story ended with Yvain's achievement of the\n'spring' adventure and his marriage with the lady. This would, I think,\nrepresent the original _lai_, which in its primitive form might well\nbe unconnected with Arthur's court: the king was probably anonymous.\nThe next step would be to Arthurise the story; Yvain must start from\nArthur's court, and naturally the court must learn of his success: this\nwas arranged by bringing Arthur and his knights to the spring where\nthey are themselves witnesses, and victims, of Yvain's prowess. It is\nsignificant that in _all_ the versions extant Yvain is influenced in\nhis secret departure from court by the conviction that _Gawain_ will\ndemand the adventure of the spring, and thus forestall him; but in\nthe Welsh variant alone is this forecast literally fulfilled and the\nundecided conflict between Yvain and Gawain fought at the spring. And\nhere the Welsh version breaks again. This was evidently the end of the\nArthurised _lai_, and the point where the conflict between the friends\nwas _originally_ placed. All the variants bear the trace of this\nsecond redaction; the Welsh tale alone indicates clearly what was the\nprimitive form. Yvain's transgression of his lady's command (probably\nfirst introduced for this purpose), a transgression much more serious\nin the Welsh, where he stays away for three years, than in the other\nversions, offered an elastic framework for the introduction of isolated\nadventures; finally, when the whole was worked over in romance form,\nhis combat with King Arthur's invincible nephew was transferred to the\nend of the poem, where it formed an appropriate and fitting climax to\nhis feats.\n\nThe theory suggested above is based upon certain recognised\npeculiarities in the evolution of the Breton _lais_; but the question\nwhether we are justified in making such use of ascertained facts\nnaturally depends upon whether the story related in the romance in\nquestion was in its origin one that we might expect to find related in\na _lai_; if it were _not_, then, however rational the hypothesis may\notherwise appear, we should regard it with suspicion as lacking solid\nfoundation.\n\nGranting then that a considerable share in the completion of Arthurian\nromantic tradition was due to the influence of _lais_ originally\nindependent of that tradition, that the process of fusion had already\ncommenced when Chr\u00e9tien wrote his poems, and that he was himself\nfamiliar with such _lais_, each of the above points having been already\nproved, our next step must be to examine the _character_ of the stories\nrelated by Chr\u00e9tien.\n\nTwo of the five works we possess (I do not count the _Guillaume_,\nwhich whether it be by Chr\u00e9tien or not lies outside the scope of our\ninquiry) must at once be put on one side. Neither _Clig\u00e9s_ nor the\n_Charrette_ story (in the form Chr\u00e9tien tells it) can be based upon\n_lais_. But the character of the three more famous poems, _Erec_,\n_Yvain_, and _Perceval_, is precisely that of a romance composed of\ntraditional and folk-lore themes. In the case of _Erec_ and _Perceval_\nthis is partially admitted even by the most thoroughgoing advocate\nof Chr\u00e9tien's originality, though Professor Foerster would limit the\nelement to the _Sparrow-hawk_ and _Joie de la Court_ adventures in\nthe first, and to Perceval's _Enfances_ as representing a _D\u00fcmmling_\nfolk-tale in the second.[69]\n\nOn this subject I shall have more to say later on; for the present\nI will confine my remarks to _Yvain_, on the construction of which\nProfessor Foerster holds a theory, highly complicated in itself,\nand excluding, as a necessary consequence, any genuine folk-lore\nelement.[70]\n\nAccording to this view the main idea of the poem is borrowed from the\nstory of _The Widow of Ephesus_, a tale of world-wide popularity, the\noldest version of which appears to be Oriental (Grisebach considered\nit to be Chinese), and which in Latin form, as told first by Ph\u00e6drus\nand then at greater length in the compilation of _The Seven Sages of\nRome_, was well known in medi\u00e6val times.[71] With this is combined\nother elements: a Breton local tradition, classical stories (the Ring\nof Gyges and the Lion of Androcles), and other stories of unspecified\norigin.\n\nOn the face of it, this theory postulates a highly artificial source,\nand one calling for great powers of invention and combination; and when\nwe examine it, we find the main idea wholly inadequate to sustain the\nelaborate fabric reared upon it. I have carefully studied _The Widow\nof Ephesus_, both in earlier and later variants, and can only see the\nslightest possible resemblance to the _Yvain_ story; true, in both a\nwidow, overcome with grief for the loss of her husband, speedily forms\na fresh attachment, but situation, details, _motif_, all are radically\ndifferent. In every variant of the first story the lady's action is\nprompted by mere sensual caprice; in the second, it is the outcome of a\nsound instinct of self-preservation. True, Laudine does eventually fall\nin love with _Yvain_, but she contemplates marriage with him before\nshe has ever beheld him, influenced by the advice of her servant,\nwho paints in strong colours the defenceless condition of the land,\nand who is aware of Yvain's passion for her lady. In _no_ variant of\nthe earlier tale does the lady marry the slayer of her husband (a\npoint, I believe, essential to the _Yvain_ story). Indeed, in many her\nadvances are rejected by the object of her passion; in _all_ she is\nrepresented as refusing to leave the grave, and none are free from the\nrepulsive details accompanying her new-fledged passion, though these\nare amplified in the later versions. In insisting on the fact that\nthe lady's re-marriage (often entirely lacking in the earlier story),\n'_unter h\u00e4sslichen unser Gef\u00fchl schwer verletzenden Bedingungen_,' is\nthe central point of both stories,[72] Professor Foerster overshoots\nhis mark. The conduct of the Lady of Ephesus is certainly offensive in\nthe highest degree, not so that of Laudine. For a woman, especially\nif she were an heiress, in medi\u00e6val times marriage was an absolute\nnecessity. The true parallel to Laudine is here _not_ the widow of\nmany wanderings, but the Duchess of Burgundy, in _Girard de Viane_,\nwho, on the death of her husband, promptly appeals to Charlemagne.\n'_A quoi sert le deuil?--donnez-moi un autre mari. Donnez moi donc\nun mari qui soit bien puissant._'[73] _Un mari bien puissant_ was a\nnecessity of those days. The real truth is, that the situation was\nalready in the story, and medi\u00e6val compilers explained it in accordance\nwith the social conditions of the time, and the parallel situations in\ncontemporary stories.\n\nA minor objection to the theory is, that it would make, not the hero,\nbut the lady, the real centre of the story, which is certainly not the\ncase. But, as we shall see, the tale in its original form is far older\nthan Chr\u00e9tien, _and could by no possibility have been invented at so\nlate a date as Professor Foerster suggests_.\n\n_Yvain_, as one of Arthur's knights, is of a date considerably anterior\nto Chr\u00e9tien. We find him in Wace's _Brut_, as a valiant hero, on whom\nArthur, after the death of Aguisel, bestows the crown of Scotland.[74]\nNow, Professor Foerster himself states, and I think the great majority\nof scholars will fully agree with him, that neither _Erec_, _Yvain_,\nnor _Perceval_ were _originally_ Arthurian heroes, and undoubtedly\ntheir connection with Arthur's court was of the slightest. If their\nconnection with Arthur marks a secondary stage in the story, and\n_Yvain_ in the _Brut_ is already an Arthurian knight, it is pretty\nobvious that the original tale connected with him, by virtue of which\nhe was admitted into the magic circle of Arthurian romance, must be\nolder even than Wace; in other words, he must have been the hero of a\npopular adventure upwards of thirty years, at least, before Chr\u00e9tien\nwrote his poem. And if that original story was not the fountain-story,\nwhat was it?\n\nBut if we look at the tale aright, I think we shall discover that its\nessential character is so archaic that it may well be as old as the\nmost exacting criticism can require. What is it but the variant of a\n_motif_ coeval with the earliest stages of human thought and religious\npractice--the tale of him '_who slew the slayer, and shall himself be\nslain_'? The champion who must needs defend his charge single-handed\nagainst all comers, and whose victor must perforce take his place; and\nhow old this tale may be, Mr. Frazer has taught us.[75]\n\nThis surmise is strengthened by the nature of the challenge; Yvain's\npouring the water, which is followed by a storm, is a simple piece of\nsympathetic magic--of rain-making, and, as such, is practised even\nto-day by savages in different parts of the world. Such a story must,\nby its very nature, have been originally _un_localised, even as it\ncannot be dated; it could be postulated of _any_ place, it might be\npractised everywhere--it belongs just as much, and just as little, to\nSouth Africa in the present day as to the wood of Broceliande in the\ntwelfth century.\n\nTo treat such a story as a local tradition is a grave error. It may\nhave recalled in its details certain stories told of the Fountain\nof Barenton, and, therefore, when transported to the Continent from\nWales (to which country the earlier redaction certainly belongs),\nthe continental story-tellers, finding the Fountain unlocalised, as\nit naturally was in the original tale, connected it with the Breton\nforest. But it is obvious that such connection is purely arbitrary,\nand has no critical value. It is at variance with all the geography\nof the story, which is located in Wales or on the Welsh border; and\nneither the compiler of the Welsh version nor the English translator\nof Chr\u00e9tien's poem admit it, but adhere to the earlier and unlocalised\nform.\n\nI may here quote a remark of the distinguished folk-lore authority\nto whom I have previously referred. Mr. E. S. Hartland says: 'The\nrain-making incident has always seemed to me a very good evidence of\nthe traditional origin of the (_Yvain_) story. At all events it is an\nincident very closely connected with savage magic.'\n\nI do not suppose it would very much astonish any competent student\nof these questions if some missionary in Africa, or traveller in the\nSouth Sea Islands, was to publish a savage variant of our romance:\nthe substitution of the slayer for the slain, and the practice of\nrain-making by the pouring out of water, are customs alive in certain\nparts of the world to this day. But what would Professor Foerster say?\nWould he still maintain that his '_Meister_' invented the story, and\ncredit the savage folk, whoever they might be, with the remains of a\nvanished civilisation and literary culture?\n\nI think it also highly probable that in the _Balaan and Balaain_\nstory, and in _Meraugis de Portlesguez_, we have variants of the same\ntheme. In each of these cases the hero must take the place of the\nchampion he defeats, and hold the post till in his turn he be defeated\nand slain; while at the same time he succeeds to his predecessor's\nrelations with the lady of the castle, whose _ami_ he becomes.[76]\nIt will be observed that Herr Ahlstr\u00f6m's suggestion that the lady may\noriginally have been a fairy--a suggestion contemptuously scouted by\nProfessor Foerster[77]--might be accepted without any detriment to\nthe original signification of the story, whereas Professor Foerster's\ntheory excludes any possible archaic origin, and is demonstrably out of\nharmony with the very primitive rain-making incident.\n\nIt is obvious that such a tale as I have indicated above, belonging as\nit does to the family of folk-lore and traditional tales, is precisely\nthe kind of story that might be related in a _lai_; and this was, I\nbelieve, its original form. It is significant that Chr\u00e9tien records\nthe fact that there was a _lai_ more or less closely connected with\nthe lady who became Yvain's wife; and, according to the reading of one\nMS., that connection was very close indeed, being nothing less\nthan the relation of how Yvain won her to wife.\n\nI print here the reading to which I refer, together with that of\nProfessor Foerster's edition:--\n\nMS. 12560, _Bib. Nat._ (An\u00e7. fr. 210), fol. 14, recto 2nd col.\n\n    _Veanz touz les barons se done\n    La dame a mon seignor 'Y.'\n    Par la main de son chapelain\n    Einsint la dame de lenduc\n    La dame qui fu fille au duc\n    Lan () donez dont len note_\u00b7|\u00b7_lai_.[78]\n\nProfessor Foerster's critical edition.\n\n    _Veant toz ses barons se done\n    La dame a mon seignor Yvain.\n    Par la main d'un suen chapelain\n    Prise a Laudine de Landuc\n    La dame qui fu fille au duc\n    Laudunet don an note un lai._\n\n    --_Yvain_, ed. 1891, ll. 2148-53.\n\n(Translation.)\n\n    _All the barons beholding, gives herself\n    The lady to my lord Yvain.\n    By the hand of her chaplain\n    Thus the lady of lenduc,\n    The lady who was daughter to the duke,\n    They have given to him of which (whom) one notes a lay._\n\n    _All her barons beholding, gives herself\n    The lady to my lord Yvain.\n    By the hand of one her chaplain\n    He has taken Laudine de Landuc,\n    The lady who was daughter to the duke,\n    Laudunet of whom (which) one notes a lay._\n\nIt will be observed that, grammatically, the phrase 'don an note\nun lai' may refer to the wedding quite as well as to the supposed\nLaudunet, while _in no other passage in the entire poem_ is the lady's\nname or that of her father mentioned.\n\nThe MS. which offers the interesting variant quoted above is,\nProfessor Foerster tells us, in the dialect of Champagne (Chr\u00e9tien was\na Champenois) of the thirteenth century, and stands in close relation\nto the source of Hartmann von Aue's translation.[79]\n\nFor many reasons it appears to me that this reading deserves more\nattention than it has yet received. It is, to say the least, curious\nthat Chr\u00e9tien should go out of his way to remark upon a _lai_ dealing\nwith an absolutely unknown personage and one to whom he never refers\nagain. Chr\u00e9tien's poems stand, _not_ at the commencement of the\nArthurian tradition, but at a very advanced stage of its evolution:\nhad there been current at that date, the end of the twelfth century, a\n_lai_ important enough to be chronicled in this unusual manner (I can\nrecall no other instance in Chr\u00e9tien's poems), some trace of the hero\nof the _lai_, if not the poem itself, would surely have been preserved\nto us. On the other hand, the version given in the Welsh tale has a\nbreak precisely at this point, showing where the primary redaction\nended, and the character of the tale is, as we have seen, such as\nmight well be preserved in a _lai_. I believe that Chr\u00e9tien is here\nindicating the original source of this section of his poem.\n\nThe passage, moreover, has a curious affinity with one to which I shall\nhave occasion to refer later on, where the carelessness of a copyist\nin running together two or three words has created what the editor of\nthe text read as a proper name, a reading adopted by his critics. But\nhere the text had not been worked over, and the result was a confused\nreading which has baffled more than one commentator. The mere chance\nthat the right reading (here undoubted) has been preserved in a text\nhitherto unaccountably neglected has enabled me to detect the error;\nbut had the copyists of the _Queste_ been as careful to preserve\nthe grammatical sense as those of the _Yvain_, we should have been\nmuch puzzled to decide whether _D'Estrois de Gariles_ was or was not\noriginally _des trois de Gaule_![80]\n\nIt is a question for experts in pal\u00e6ography which is the more likely\nerror to be made, the running of two or three words into one,\neventually read as a proper name, or the separation of the letters\ncomposing a proper name into two or three words.\n\nIt appears to me that the arguments advanced for the above view are,\nas compared with Professor Foerster's arguments, _objective_ versus\n_subjective_. Professor Foerster sees in the story of Yvain and his\nlady a resemblance to the tale of the _Widow of Ephesus_, _therefore_\nhe concludes that Chr\u00e9tien based his romance on that story; but in\nsupport of his theory he offers no _proof_ whatever: there is no\nevidence that Chr\u00e9tien knew the tale, no reference to a book in which\nit might be contained, no correspondence of name or phrase, and the\nmost characteristic incidents, the dwelling by the grave, and the\ninsult to the corpse, have no parallel in the romance.[81] The evidence\nis purely subjective; satisfactory to the framer of the theory, but not\nsatisfactory to others.\n\nThe evidence for the theory advanced above is, on the contrary,\npurely objective. The story must be of such a character that it might\nbe told as a _lai_--it is of such a character, _i.e._ folk-lore and\ntraditional; _proof_--the rain-making incident, and correspondence\nwith the _motif_ of 'slayer and slain.' We must have proof that\nChr\u00e9tien knew the _lais_ current in his day--he refers to one of the\nmost famous, _Guingamor_, and couples the hero with that of another,\n_Graalent_. We should like a reference to a _lai_ connected with the\nstory--we have the reference, at the very point where, according\nto our theory, we might expect to find it. Further, the reading of\none MS., and that neither a late nor a poor one, gives a\nremarkable indication of the contents of the _lai_. If on these grounds\nwe decline to accept the _Widow of Ephesus_ theory we are surely\nneither prejudiced nor oblivious of facts.[82]\n\nNor is Professor Foerster more fortunate in his theory of the origin\nof _Perceval_. He states it at great length in the introduction to the\n_Charrette_,[83] but the main points may be summarised thus. The book\ngiven to Chr\u00e9tien by Count Philip of Flanders was a _Grail_ as distinct\nfrom a _Perceval_ romance. The two were independent stories and their\ncombination was the work of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes. 'Dieser original\nGralroman enthielt nat\u00fcrlich keinen Perceval und auch nicht dessen\nSagen-motiv, sondern wird den uns sonst bekannten Gral-texten \u00e4hnlich\ngewesen sein.'[84] 'Sollte das _livre_ aber, aller Unwahrscheinlichkeit\nzu trotz, dennoch ein Perceval (d. h. D\u00fcmmlings-) Roman gewesen sein,\nso erkl\u00e4rt sich ebenfalls warum das _livre_ nicht gefunden worden ist:\n_der Name Perceval stand nat\u00fcrlich nicht in demselben sondern ist\ndurch Kristian von einem schon in Erec genannten Ritter auf den Helden\n\u00fcbertragen worden_.'[85]\n\nInto such pitfalls can the obstinate adherence to a preconceived idea\nlead the most distinguished scholar! What are the facts? In _Erec_,\nChr\u00e9tien mentions Perceval by his full title, Perceval li Galois, as\nat Arthur's court, but does not include him in the list of knights of\nthe Round Table;[86] but in _Clig\u00e9s_, written some years later than\n_Erec_, and according to Professor Foerster himself _between twenty\nand thirty years before the Perceval_, the whole position is changed:\nPerceval is not merely one of Arthur's knights, but second in rank,\ninferior only to Gawain, thus displacing _Erec_, whose praises Chr\u00e9tien\nhad sung at length, and superior to Lancelot, whom the poet also\ncelebrated before he wrote of Perceval.\n\nThis is the position. Clig\u00e9s has come to a tournament at Ossenefort,\nand has on the first two days overthrown successively Segramore and\nLancelot; on the third day:\n\n    '_Del ranc devers Ossenefort\n    Part uns vassaus de grant renon,\n    Percevaus li Galois ot non.\n    Lu\u00e9s que Clig\u00e9s le vit movoir\n    Et de son non o\u00ef le voir,\n    Que Perceval l'o\u00ef nomer,\n    Mout desirre a lui asanbler._'--_Clig\u00e9s_, 4826-32.\n\nThis is the Perceval who was only a name to Chr\u00e9tien! But Chr\u00e9tien's\nhero knows him! Can we avoid the conclusion that, at the time _Clig\u00e9s_\nwas written, Perceval was already the hero of a well-known and highly\npopular tale; so popular that the author felt justified in displacing\nin his favour the hero (Erec) whose deeds he had already sung with such\nmarked success? If the story of Perceval li Galois be due to Chr\u00e9tien,\nthen we must believe that, having conceived the tale in his mind,\nand paved the way for its reception by the above reference, he yet\nabstained from presenting it to the public for nearly thirty years! Or\ncould Perceval have been the hero of some other tale, the popularity of\nwhich has waned before that of Chr\u00e9tien's poem? Of any story connected\nwith him save the _Enfances-Grail_ adventure there is no trace, and\nof these we have variants of the former _minus_ the Grail tradition\n(_Peredur_ and the English _Sir Percyvelle_); but all the Grail stories\nknow the _Enfances_.\n\nIt is also significant that Chr\u00e9tien in the _Erec_ mentions both\nGurnemanz (Gornemant) and L'Orguelleus de la Lande, both of them noted\ncharacters of the _Perceval_ story; in fact, but for that story the\nformer would be nothing more than a name to us.\n\nI have remarked in a note to chap. ii. that Chr\u00e9tien apparently also\nknew the enchanter of the _Lanzelet_. I had not noted this till I\nhad completed my study of the poem, and, as a footnote is apt to be\noverlooked, I draw attention to it here. In the list of the knights of\nthe Round Table given in _Erec_, Chr\u00e9tien ranks as eighth Mauduiz li\nSages; in Hartmann's translation the name is given as Malduiz li Sages;\n_Diu Kr\u00f4ne_ has Malduz der Weise; the _Lanzelet_ spells the enchanter's\nname Malduz or Malduc, and qualifies him as der W\u00eese.[87]\n\nI do not think there can be the least doubt that it is one and the\nsame individual who is referred to in these quotations, and the only\nadventure known of him, and one which would fully account for his\nsobriquet _li Sages_, is one which is preserved in a poem bristling\nwith _Perceval_ allusions,[88] the _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven.\n\nI have said above that a critical edition of the _Lanzelet_ is\nurgently needed, and I should not be surprised if the result of a close\nexamination of that poem were to show good reasons for fixing the date\nof the _Perceval_ story (as a _Perceval_ and not a mere _D\u00fcmmling_\nstory) at a much earlier period than we have hitherto been inclined to\nadmit.[89]\n\nIs it not the fact that story-tellers in medi\u00e6val times depended for\ntheir popularity less upon the _manner_ in which they told their\nstories than on the stories themselves? _i.e._, if they wished to\nwrite a really popular poem they took a subject already popular,\nand which they knew would be secure of a favourable hearing. Are we\nreally so unreasonable when we contend that it was the traditional,\nfolk-lore, popular character of the stories told in _Erec_, _Yvain_,\nand _Perceval_, which made them so much more popular than _Clig\u00e9s_? The\n_Charrette_ is so manifestly inferior to Chr\u00e9tien's other works that we\nwill not call it as evidence; it was, and deserved to be, little known.\nBut _Clig\u00e9s_ stands on a different footing. The story is interesting,\nit is well written, and the love-tale of Alexander and Soredamors\ncontains some of the poet's most characteristic writing; yet, compared\nwith the other poems, it took little hold on the popular fancy. Was it\nnot because the story was unknown to the general public with whom the\ntale itself counted for more than the skill with which it was told?\n\nI cannot but think that to treat such stories as the three named above,\nsolely as _Arthurian_ stories, is to base our criticism of them on\nan entirely false foundation: they are only Arthurian in a secondary\nsense, and criticism of them, to be accurate and scientific, must be\nfounded as much on folk-lore as on literary data. Nor, I submit, are\narguments, which may be sound enough as applied to the rise of the\nArthurian romantic legend, of necessity equally sound when applied to\nstories of independent origin incorporated in that legend. I do not\nsay for a moment that Arthur as a _romantic_ hero is a continental\ncreation, personally I very much doubt it; but of this I am quite\ncertain, were that continental origin proved up to the hilt, it would\nstill leave unsolved the problem of the origin of these stories.\n\nBefore closing this chapter I would touch for a moment on the\ngeographical questions involved; for it seems to me that not sufficient\naccount has been taken of the marked difference between the geography\nof these three and that of Chr\u00e9tien's remaining two poems. The first\nthree have a common character. Yvain's adventures pass in and on the\nborders of Wales. He starts from Carduel en Galles (Kardyf in the\nEnglish version), and after one night's rest reaches the fountain. It\nis at Chester, not otherwise an Arthurian town, but one well within\nthe bounds of the story, that his wife's messenger finds him. Erec is\n'_d'Estregalles_'; the towns are Caradigan, Carduel, C\u00e6rnant, Nantes.\nSo with Perceval, who is _li Galois_, we have Carduel, Dinasdron, the\nForest of Broceliande--exactly the geography we might expect in stories\nof Welsh origin redacted on Armorican ground. Many of the names here,\nas in certain of the _lais_, may be either insular or continental,\ninasmuch as they are common to the Celtic race on both sides of the\nChannel.\n\nBut in _Clig\u00e9s_, and in a minor degree in the _Charrette_, we are\non different ground: the geography is that neither of Wales nor of\nBrittany. Here we have Dover, Wallingford, Winchester, Windsor,\nSouthampton, Oxford, Shoreham, Bath, London; while we note a marked\nomission of the distinctively _Arthurian_ localities. The _Charrette_\nopens at _Carlion_, which it, however, apparently confuses with\n_Camelot_.\n\nNow this is surely significant. If Chr\u00e9tien had a free hand in the\narrangement of his stories, if they were really compounded of elements\ndrawn from all sources and thus combined for the first time, why did\nhe shift his _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ backwards and forwards in this curious\nmanner? Why turn from the geography of _Erec_ to that of _Clig\u00e9s_\nand the _Charrette_, only to revert to his first love in _Yvain_ and\n_Perceval_? Is it not most probable that in those three stories, at\nleast, he was dealing with traditional matter, the localising of which\nhad already been effected?\n\nIn the case of _Clig\u00e9s_ and the _Charrette_ it seems not improbable\nthat closer investigation may find grounds to support the theory of\na possible Anglo-Norman transmission, which would account for the\nsouthern England geography.[90]\n\nA point on which we may well lay stress is, that the independence of\nChr\u00e9tien as a story-teller does not stand or fall with the existence\nor non-existence of Anglo-Norman Arthurian poems. Their importance, in\nrelation to Chr\u00e9tien, may easily be exaggerated by those unfamiliar\nwith the character of oral tales. If we once accept as a principle\nthe well-ascertained fact that such stories have a tendency to fall\ninto a set form, a fixed sequence of incident and detail, would\nalways be related in practically the same words, and, moreover, could\nwell contain more than one _sagen motif_, we shall realise that the\nnecessity of postulating a written source as explanation for the\nagreement in sequence, incident, and phrase, becomes infinitely less\npressing.[91]\n\nTo my mind, the correspondences between the Welsh Arthurian tales and\nChr\u00e9tien's three poems in question offer no proof that the former\nrepose directly on these poems as basis; but I consider it extremely\nprobable that many of the perplexing features of the question--_e.g._\nthe occurrence in the Welsh stories, and in translations of Chr\u00e9tien's\npoems, of details not to be found in the best MSS. of those poems--may\nbe accounted for by copyists and translators familiar with an oral\nversion of the tale, filling in details which Chr\u00e9tien had either\nnever heard, or had purposely omitted. If we postulate, as from the\ncharacter of the stories we are justified in doing, a very widespread\nknowledge of those tales, apart from any written source, we shall not\nbe surprised at the existence of a large number of minor variants; the\nimpossibility of explaining which on purely literary grounds drives\nProfessor Foerster and those who share his views to the unsatisfactory\nexpedient of multiplying MS. 'families.'[92]\n\nTo sum up the considerations advanced in the preceding pages, I think\nwe are justified in saying that the real _crux_ of Arthurian romance\nis the period _before_ and not _after_ Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes. Not that\nthe latter period does not offer us puzzles: it does, many and great,\nbut when we arrive at some definite and _proven_ conclusion as to\nthe materials with which the earliest compilers of metrical romance\nwere dealing, we shall have made a great step towards unravelling the\nproblem of their successors. So far, I do not think we have arrived\nat such a conclusion; many theories are in the field, but none seem\nentirely to meet the conditions of the question. My own conviction is\nthat, whether oral or written, Arthurian romantic tradition is of much\nolder date than we have hitherto been inclined to believe.\n\nTo arrive at any solid result in our investigations there are certain\nprinciples which we must always keep in view, _e.g._, if the Arthurian\ntradition consists (as it admittedly does) largely of folk-lore and\nmythic elements, it must, so far as these elements are concerned, be\nexamined and criticised on methods recognised and adopted by experts\nin those branches of knowledge--and not treated on literary lines and\nliterary evidence alone. Thus it is essential to determine the original\n_character_ of a story before proceeding to criticise its literary\n_form_. To treat stories of folk-lore origin from an exclusively\nliterary point of view is to render a false conclusion not merely\nprobable but _certain_.\n\nIn every case where an oral source appears probable, or even possible,\nwe must ascertain, from the evidence of experts in story-transmission,\nwhat are the characteristics of tales so told, and what is the nature\nof the correspondence existing between tales of common origin but of\nindependent development.\n\nThe evidence of proper names is valuable only in a secondary degree,\nas testifying to the place or places of redaction. But the older the\nstory the less valuable they are as indications of original _source_,\nthe oldest tales having a strong tendency to anonymity. So we find that\nin the _lais_ the older versions only speak of 'a king,' the later\nidentify that king with Arthur.[93]\n\nIf we take these elementary tests, and apply them to those of the\npoems of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes for which a traditional origin may safely\nbe postulated, we shall I think arrive at the conclusion that there\nis little ground for ascribing _inventive_ genius to the poet, whose\nsuperiority over his contemporaries was _quantitative_ rather than\n_qualitative_. He differed from them in degree, not in kind; he had a\nkeener sense of artistic composition, a more excellent literary style.\nGiven the same material as his contemporaries he produced a superior\nresult; when the material was deficient, as in the _Charrette_, the\nresult was proportionately inferior.\n\nThere is no necessity to belittle him as '_ein sklavischer\n\u00dcbersetzer_'; there is no ground that I can see for crediting him with\nan inventive genius foreign to his age. The truth lies, as it so often\ndoes, midway between the two extremes.\n\nIn this connection I may well quote Dr. Schofield's sober and carefully\nreasoned conclusion to his _Study of the Lays of Graalent and Lanval_:\n'The process of combining separate episodes to make an extended poem,\nwe may well believe, had begun before the time of Marie's contemporary,\nChr\u00e9tien de Troyes. He simply carried it one step farther, and devoted\nhis great literary talent to presenting in more attractive form,\nwith more modern courtly flourishes, the stories already existing.\nDoubtless he himself made new combinations, and in so doing was\nguided by a poet's sense of appropriateness, choosing such general and\nsubordinate episodes as would contribute best to the development of his\nhero's character.[94] To him we must certainly ascribe the interesting\npsychological discussions so numerous in his works. But still his power\nof invention is not great. His art is shown above all in the way in\nwhich he combines and arranges separate stories, or embellishes those\nalready told at considerable length.'[95]\n\nThese words, I believe, state in generous terms the position which\nscientific criticism will ultimately assign to Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes: they\nrepresent the very utmost that can reasonably be claimed for him.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n Herr Brugger's article, referred to on p. 66, did not come into my\n hands until these studies were in proof. Inasmuch as the theory\n regarding the Arthurisation of the _lais_ stated in this chapter and\n in chapter ii. might lead some readers to the conclusion that my views\n are identical with those set forth in the article in question, I think\n it well to state (_a_) that I only postulate of certain early metrical\n romances an origin which Herr Brugger apparently attributes to _all_\n Arthurian romances, prose or verse; (_b_) that when Herr Brugger\n speaks of _origin_ he uses the word loosely, and in a _secondary_\n sense, whereas I use it in a _primary_; _e.g._ to say that a story\n which reached French writers through a Breton source may therefore\n be accurately described as of Breton origin is, in my opinion, both\n inaccurate and misleading, especially in the face of Professor\n Foerster's strongly reiterated denials of an insular Arthurian\n _romantic_ tradition. The immediate source of the French writers does\n not solve for us the problem of the origins of Arthurian tradition; it\n is a mistake to employ an argument, or use terminology, confounding\n two distinct questions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE PROSE LANCELOT--THE 'ENFANCES' OF THE HERO\n\n\nIn the preceding chapters we have examined certain romances of the\n_Lancelot_ cycle lying outside the great prose compilation which\nrepresents its final form. The _popular_ 'Lancelot' legend was the\nlegend as told in the prose _Lancelot_, and the _Grail_ romances\ntherewith incorporated. It is with these romances we must now deal.\n\nThe elements composing this vast compilation (which in its completed\nform appears to have aimed at embracing the entire Arthurian cycle\nin all its ramifications) are so diverse that it would, under any\ncircumstances, be a matter of great difficulty to decide how best\nto analyse and examine the composite structure; and this initial\ndifficulty is much increased by the fact that so far the material at\nour disposal, abundant though it be, is in an inchoate and unorganised\ncondition. There is no critical edition of the prose _Lancelot_; and as\nwe shall see in the following studies, not merely the MSS.,\nbut the numerous printed editions derived from the MSS.,\ndiffer so widely from each other that until a critical text based on\na comparison of _all_ the available versions is in our hands, it will\nbe quite impossible to do more than form a tentative hypothesis, or\nadvance a guarded suggestion as to the gradual growth and formation of\nthe completed legend.\n\nI would therefore entreat any readers of this and the subsequent\nchapters to bear in mind that I am not attempting any critical study\nof the prose _Lancelot_, as a whole--the time for such a study has not\nyet come--but rather I am examining (_a_) certain points of the prose\nlegend which are of capital importance in themselves, or must have\nexisted in some form even in a shorter version of the story, _e.g._,\nsuch as Lancelot's youth, and first appearance at court, his relations\nwith Guinevere, and connection with the Grail story; (_b_) certain\ninteresting variants in the texts we possess, variants which are of\nthe greatest importance to English scholars as clearing up many of the\ndifficulties connected with the character of the source used by Malory\nin his compilation.[96] My aim is to prepare the way for a critical\nexamination of the prose _Lancelot_ rather than to myself offer such a\ncritical examination.\n\nIn a previous chapter I hazarded the suggestion that the original germ\nof the whole story might prove to be a _lai_ recounting the theft of\na child by a water-fairy, and in spite of the unwieldy dimensions to\nwhich the tale has grown, I think this suggestion will be found to hold\ngood.\n\nAs I hinted above, the _Lancelot_ legend is not confined to the\nprose _Lancelot_, but it has affected romances originally entirely\nunconnected with our hero, such as the _Merlin_ and the _Tristan_. In\nthe earliest forms of the story neither of these tales have anything\nwhatever to do with Lancelot; in the latest versions _Tristan_ has been\npractically incorporated into the _Lancelot_, while _Merlin_ forms an\nelaborate introduction to it.\n\nThough it has undergone a certain amount of modification, the\ntradition at the base of the _Merlin_ and prose _Lancelot_ appears\nto be identical with that related by the _Lanzelet_. The names Ban\nof Benoic and Pant of Genew\u00ees are quite near enough to represent the\nsame original, probably modified in the _Lanzelet_ by translation into\nanother tongue. The story of the king driven from his kingdom and dying\nof a broken heart is the same, _au fond_, though the _motif_ has been\nvaried, and in the prose _Lancelot_ the king's misfortunes are caused\nby treachery, and not by his own misgovernment. This is a very natural\nmodification, and one likely to be caused by the growing popularity\nof the son, which would have a tendency to react favourably on the\ncharacter of the father.[97]\n\nIt is clear that both versions of the _Merlin_ story know the\n_Lancelot_ legend in its completed form. Thus the Vulgate _Merlin_\nknows of his two cousins, Lionel and Bohort, whose introduction into\nthe legend marks that secondary stage, when not merely the hero, but\nthe hero's race in its entirety, is selected for special honour.[98]\n\nIn the Ordinary, or Vulgate, _Merlin_, the enchanter is never brought\ninto direct contact with Lancelot, but is betrayed to his doom before\nthe birth of that hero takes place. In the _Suite de Merlin_, however,\nhe and his treacherous love visit the castle of King Ban, and see\nthe child, whose future fame Merlin prophesies; while the lady is\nidentified with the fairy who brings up Lancelot.[99]\n\nThe _Suite_ also refers in a prophetic manner to certain subsequent\nfeats of Lancelot, and introduces the personages of the _Tristan_\nstory, such as Morholt (Le Morhout),[100] a clear proof that it is\nposterior to the incorporation of this legend with the Arthurian cycle.\n\nOf the two _Merlin_ versions, the _Suite_ therefore appears to\nbe the later, but the Vulgate _Merlin_ also refers to the Grail\nromances,[101] so that it seems clear that both have been redacted\nsubsequent to the completion of the _Lancelot_ story.\n\nTo return to the prose _Lancelot_. The story of the hero's youth, while\nagreeing in the main with that told by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, is yet\nmarked by important modifications and additions. The brothers Lionel\nand Bohort appear on the scene, and become Lancelot's companions,\nwhile the whole conception of the kingdom of the Lady of the Lake\nis radically modified. It is no longer a _Meide-lant_; Lancelot has\nknight-attendants as well as cousin-playfellows, indeed, save for\nthe _Mirage_, which counterfeits a lake and thus keeps off unwelcome\nintruders, the country is to all intents and purposes an ordinary\nearthly kingdom.[102]\n\nWhen the lad (who is always called by his protectress _Fils du roi_,\nand has a more than adequate idea of his own importance) leaves the\nkingdom, which he does in order to seek knighthood at Arthur's hands,\nhe goes gorgeously equipped, with armour, steed, and retinue of\nservants.\n\nBut his arrival at Arthur's court is most interesting and suggestive.\nArthur meets him without the town, and consigns him to the care of\n_Ywain_, who, the next day, leads him to the palace through a crowd of\nspectators eager to look upon his beauty.\n\nIn a previous chapter I have commented upon the strong resemblance\nbetween the account of Lanzelet's entry into the world, as described\nby Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, and that of Parzival, as related by Wolfram\nvon Eschenbach. Both alike are ignorant of knightly skill and customs;\nboth are unable to control their steeds, they cannot even hold the\nbridle; both are alike fair to look upon, but apparently foolish\n(_tumbe_); both are ignorant of their name and parentage. Different as\nthe account of the prose _Lancelot_ is from this, and no difference\ncould well be wider, yet here again the _Lancelot_ falls into line\nwith the _Perceval_ story, and again in the form peculiar to Wolfram\nvon Eschenbach; for there, too, Parzival makes his entry on foot,\nthrough a crowd eager to behold his beauty, and his guide is the squire\n_Iwanet_.[103]\n\nIt will be remembered that in Chr\u00e9tien's version of the story\nPerceval's entry is made under quite different circumstances. He rides\ninto the hall, and advances so close to the king that his horse's head\ntouches him, and subsequently he refuses to dismount.\n\nThe correspondence of the name Ywain=Iwanet is also significant. In\nthe case of Wolfram's poem it has been generally concluded that the\nname was a diminutive of _Iwein_ or _Iwan_, and therefore distinct\nfrom the name Chr\u00e9tien gives to Gawain's squire who aids Perceval to\ndisarm his fallen foe--_Yonet_. Hertz, in his recent translation of the\n_Parzival_,[104] takes this view, though he would differentiate the\nYwain referred to from King Urien's famous son, and in my translation\nof the poem I adopted the same view. But further study has led me to\ndoubt this solution. I now think it more probable that the name is in\nboth cases the same, _i.e._ a form of the Breton _Yonec_, which we\nfind with the varying spelling, _Iwenec_ and _Yonet_.[105] Thus both\nChr\u00e9tien and Wolfram refer to the same character; and the compiler\nof the prose _Lancelot_ probably knew the _Perceval_ story under a\nform analogous rather to Wolfram than to Chr\u00e9tien. Whether the form\n_Ywain_ was adopted through a mistake, or from a desire to substitute\na well-known hero for an obscure squire, it is impossible to say, in\nany case the correspondence, though less striking than the similar\npassages of the _Lanzelet_, is worth noting.[106]\n\nAgain we find that Guinevere, failing to obtain an answer from the\nyouth, who is struck dumb by her beauty, makes some contemptuous\nremarks as to his lack of sense, and leaves the hall. This may be\ncompared with _Parzival_, Book III. ll. 988-9.[107]\n\nA further indication of contact with the _Perceval_ romances is\nafforded by the love-trances which overtake the hero at the most\ninconvenient moment, and are repeated _ad nauseam_ in the most clumsy\nand inartistic manner. It is noticeable that on the occasion of the\nfirst attack (in the case of Lancelot one can only regard these trances\nas an intermittent malady) the knight is clad in red armour and leans\non his spear--as does Perceval when he sees the blood-drops on the\nsnow. In the prose _Lancelot_ it is invariably the sight, and not the\nmemory, of Guinevere which causes the trance, a far less poetical\nconception than that of the _Perceval_.\n\nBut in face of the passage quoted by M. Paulin Paris, in his\ntranslation of the prose _Lancelot_, probably few will contend\nthat the story of _Perceval_ was not anterior to, and well-known by\nthe compiler of, the first mentioned romance. _Et le grant conte de\nLancelot convient repairier en la fin \u00e0 Perceval qui est chi\u00e9s et la\nfin de tos les contes \u00e8s autres chevaliers. Et tout sont branches\nde lui, qu'il acheva la grant queste. Et li contes Perceval meismes\nest une branche del haut conte del Graal qui est chi\u00e9s de tos les\ncontes._[108]\n\nWe should note here that when this particular passage was written the\nwriter evidently knew nothing of Galahad as the Grail Winner, though he\nknew the _Lancelot_ story in an advanced stage. We shall have occasion\nto refer to this later on.\n\nIn the account of Lancelot's first appearance at court we find an\nincident which appears to connect the story with a cycle of poems\nbearing a curious resemblance to the _Perceval_ cycle--the _Bel\nInconnu_ poems. Immediately after the hero has received knighthood, as\nthey sit at meat in the hall, a messenger arrives, sent by the 'Dame\nde Nohan,'[109] asking for a champion to aid her against the King\nof Northumberland. Lancelot (whose name we must remember is not yet\nrevealed, and who is referred to by the compiler as _Le Beau Varlet_)\nat once requests that the adventure be given to him, and, though Arthur\ndemurs on account of his youth and inexperience, insists that he has a\nright to it, as the first boon he has claimed since he was knighted.\n\nIt is under precisely similar circumstances that the hero of the _Bel\nInconnu_ stories undertakes his first adventure.\n\nOthers have been struck by this resemblance, and M. Philipot, in his\nreview of Dr. Schofield's _Studies on the Libeaus Desconus_,[110]\nmaintains that the _Lancelot_ story (more particularly in the version\nknown to Ulrich von Zatzikhoven) is the elder of the two, and the\nsource of the parallel adventure of the _Bel Inconnu_ group.\n\nWith this view I cannot agree. I have elsewhere[111] given reasons for\nholding the true order of the _Enfances_ to be as follows, _Perceval_,\n_Le Bel Inconnu_, _Lancelot_, and to this view I adhere. We must\nremember that the French original of the _Lanzelet_ must in any case be\nprior to 1194; how much earlier we have no means of deciding, but the\n_Lanzelet_ has points of contact with both the _Perceval_ (Enfances)\nand the _Bel Inconnu_ (Fier Baiser) story. Further, the prose\n_Lancelot_, though differing very widely from Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's\npoem, yet, as we see, also offers parallels both to _Perceval_ and _Le\nBel Inconnu_; such parallels being entirely different from those of the\n_Lanzelet_. To assert that these stories borrowed from the _Lancelot_\nwould involve the existence, at an early date, of a fully developed and\nwidely diffused _Lancelot_ legend, a conclusion which the absence of\nall reference to the hero in the earlier Arthurian romances forbids.\n\nTo my mind, when we have three separate cycles of romance closely\nconnected with each other, if we desire to discover which is the oldest\nof the stories we should ask in the first instance, in which of the\nstories are the incidents common to all the essence, in which are\nthey the accidents, of the tale. It is quite clear that they are not\nessential to the _Lancelot_ story. The characteristics of ignorance,\nsimplicity, and headlong impulsiveness attributed to him by Ulrich\nvon Zatzikhoven, are entirely foreign to his character as elsewhere\nrepresented; even in the _Lanzelet_ they are promptly discarded: but\nthey _are_ the very essence of Perceval's character, he, and no other,\nis the _sch\u00f6ne tumbe_ of romance. Again, the adventure of the _Fier\nBaiser_ has absolutely nothing to do with Lancelot; it is manifestly\ndragged into the _Lanzelet_ version 'by the head and shoulders,' and\nhas no connection with the context, but it is the crown and completion\nof the adventures of Gawain's nameless son.[112]\n\nWhatever be the connection between the _Perceval_ and _Bel Inconnu_\nstories, I think it is clear that both were well known before the\ndevelopment of the _Lancelot_ legend took place, and that in the\nprocess of development this latter borrowed from both. A close\nexamination of the variants of the _Lancelot_ 'Enfances' will, I think,\nstrengthen the hypothesis advanced in a previous chapter, _i.e._ that\nthe connection of the hero with a water-fairy _alone_ is of the essence\nof the tale, all the rest is comparatively late in development, and\nmarkedly _non_-original and secondary in character.[113]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE PROSE LANCELOT--THE LOVES OF LANCELOT AND GUINEVERE\n\n\nIn the previous chapter I remarked that the time, and the material, for\na really critical study of the prose _Lancelot_ were not yet ripe, and\nthat I should, therefore, confine myself to the discussion of the more\nstriking features of the story, _i.e._ the _Enfances_, the _liaison_\nwith Guinevere, and the connection with the Grail Quest. These form\nwhat we may call the persistent element in the completed _Lancelot_\nlegend; the great mass of adventures filling in the framework, varying\n(as we shall presently see) so considerably, that till we have some\nidea of the growth and various redactions of the story it is hopeless\nto attempt to criticise them.\n\nCertain remarks, however, we can safely make. The story as we have it\nat present is marked by a constant repetition of similar incidents.\nI have already alluded to one, the love-trance. What we may perhaps\nconsider an exaggeration of this _motif_, the love-madness, also\noccurs more than once and has affected the _Tristan_ story. This is\ncertainly not an original feature, but I think it is a question whether\nthe source be the _Chevalier au Lion_ or the _Prophecies of Merlin_;\npersonally I incline to the latter solution, and think the name of\nMerlin's wife, Guendolen, may have suggested its introduction into the\n_Lancelot_ story.[114]\n\nAnother incident of frequent repetition is the release of the hero\nfrom prison in order that he may attend a tournament. Of this we have\nat least three instances: the version of the _Charrette_, where it\nis the wife of the seneschal, his jailor, who assists him; and two\nbelonging specially to the prose _Lancelot_. In one instance it is from\nthe prison of the Dame de Malehault that he attends the tournament\nand returns, as in the _Charrette_; in the other he is freed from the\nprison of the three queens by the daughter of the Duc de Rochedon, and\ndoes not return. This latter also corresponds with his being freed\nfrom the prison of Meleagant by the daughter of King Baudemagus,\nwhom Malory, doubtless under the influence of the _Charrette_ story,\nsubstitutes in his translation for the heiress of Rochedon.\n\nAgain we find that certain adventures, some of considerable importance,\nare related in some versions of the story while they are omitted in\nothers, but in the absence of a critical and comparative edition\nit is impossible to say which of the great mass of adventures now\ncomposing the prose _Lancelot_ belonged to the original redaction. Nor\ncan this again be satisfactorily settled till we have determined the\nmutual relation between the _Grand S. Graal_, the _Queste_, and the\n_Lancelot_. In short, the _Lancelot_ problem involves a number of minor\nproblems of extreme intricacy, and till these be solved we only stand\non the threshold of Arthurian criticism.[115]\n\nA point in which it appears to me that we have a suggestion of the\noriginal tale, expanded from a source foreign to that tale, is in the\naccount of the expedition undertaken to recover Lancelot's ancestral\nkingdom from the hands of King Claudas. There is no doubt that the hero\nshould, as a matter of poetical justice, regain his inheritance, and in\nthe _Lanzelet_ we find it summarily recorded that he does so,[116] but\nunder entirely different circumstances from those recorded in the prose\n_Lancelot_. The latter account is of extreme length, and apparently a\nfree imitation of the Arthurian expeditions of the _Chronicles_; the\nincident of Frollo's defeat before Paris is certainly borrowed from\nGeoffrey or his translators. As it now stands the incident is lacking\nin point and practically unnecessary to the story, since Lancelot\nprefers to continue Arthur's knight rather than become a sovereign\nin his own right, and therefore bestows the lands on his cousins and\nbastard half-brother. The retention of a feature which evolution has\nthus robbed of its significance appears to afford evidence both of the\noriginal independence of the tale and also of the priority of Ulrich\nvon Zatzikhoven's version.\n\nLeaving on one side then the minor adventures into which the successive\nredactions have introduced considerable variation, we will turn to that\nfeature of the story which, practically unvarying in form, appears\nto offer us a fairer prospect of arriving at some real and definite\nconclusion--the love of Lancelot for the wife of his liege lord.\nSetting aside the many minor questions to which the subject gives rise,\nit seems to me that the main problem of the amours of Lancelot and\nGuinevere is, Do they represent the latest form of an original feature\nof the story, or are we to consider them as an addition to the tale, an\nelement imported into it under the influence of the popular _Tristan_\nlegend?\n\nThis much is certain, there is no literary evidence of growth in the\nstory; either it is non-existent, as in the _Lanzelet_, or complete,\nfully developed, and decked out in all the artificialities and\nrefinements of _Minne-dienst_, as in the _Charrette_. As we noted in\nour discussion of the latter poem, Chr\u00e9tien evidently credits his\naudience with a previous knowledge of the relations between the queen\nand his hero; he nowhere hints that he is about to tell them something\nnew, nor does he offer any explanation why Lancelot rather than Gawain,\nwho, as the _Merlin_ informs us, was 'the queen's knight,' should\nachieve the rescue of his liege lady. There can be no doubt that he was\ndealing with a situation thoroughly familiar to, and understood by, his\nhearers.\n\nA point which we are much tempted to overlook in the criticism of\nArthurian romance is the length of time intervening between the period\nat which the events recorded are supposed to have happened, and the\nearliest known literary record of those events. If we estimate this\nintervening period as five centuries, we are speaking well within the\nmark. It is obvious that we have here ample time for forgetfulness,\ndislocation, or rearrangement of the original legend. Yet that that\nlegend survived I hold for certain. Had Arthur been completely\nforgotten, the immense popularity achieved by the romances of his\ncycle would constitute a literary phenomenon practically unique; the\nseed that in the twelfth century burst into such glorious flower had\nbeen germinating for ages. The question is, what was the nature of\nthat seed--what the relation of the original Arthurian legend to the\ncompleted Arthurian romance?\n\nOn this point it behoves us to tread warily, and to avoid dogmatising.\nI have suggested elsewhere that probably the historic germ of the\nArthurian legend is to be found in his fights with the Saxons,\nhis betrayal by his wife and nephew, and his death in battle with\nthe latter. Certainly there is a genuine historic element in the\naccount of his wars; and it is significant that the older Arthurian\nchroniclers--Geoffrey of Monmouth and his translators--all agree in\nrelating at considerable length the story of Guinevere's betrayal of\nher husband; while the Welsh tradition, which does not know Lancelot,\nis even more emphatic on the subject of her infidelity.[117]\n\nWe must remember that, alike in Geoffrey, Wace, and Layamon, the\naccount of Guinevere's relations with Mordred is totally different to\nthat familiar to us through Malory, and borrowed by him from the _Mort\nArtur_. In the latter, the queen is no accomplice in Mordred's treason,\nbut resists his advances _vi et armis_, barricading herself in the\nTower of London, where the traitor vainly besieges her.\n\nIn the chronicles the whole position is different: they shall speak for\nthemselves. This is Wace's account:\n\n    '_Que Mordret fist en Engleterre\n    La roine sot et o\u00ef_,\n           *       *       *       *       *\n    _A Evro\u00efc ert \u00e0 sejor,\n    En pens\u00e9 fu et en tristor.\n    Membra lui de la vilenie\n    Que por Mordret se fu honie;\n    Le roi avoit deshonor\u00e9\n    Et son neveu Mordret am\u00e9,\n    Contre loi l'avoit espos\u00e9e,\n    S'in estoit honie et dampn\u00e9e;\n    Mius vausist morte estre que vive,\n    Mult en estoit morne et pensive.\n    A Karlion s'en est fuie,\n    S'in entra en une aba\u00efe,\n    Iloc devint none vel\u00e9e;\n    Tote sa vie i fu cel\u00e9e.\n    Ne fu o\u00efe, ne v\u00e9ue,\n    Ne fu trov\u00e9e, ne s\u00e9ue.\n    Por la vergogne del mesfait\n    Et del p\u00e9ci\u00e9 qu'ele avoit fait._'--_Brut_, ii. ll. 13607-30.\n\nIn the corresponding passage, Geoffrey of Monmouth gives as his\nauthorities 'Breton' tradition and the clerk Walter of Oxford (cf. note\nto above passage). Layamon in his account is even more severe towards\nthe guilty pair:\n\n    '_Ar\u00f0ur bi-tahte\n    al \u00feat he ahte.\n    Moddrade and \u00feere quene\n    \u00feat heom was iquene.\n    \u00feat was ufele idon\n    \u00feat heo iboren weoren.\n    \u00feis lond heo for-radden\n    mid r\u00e6u\u00f0en uniuo[gh]en.\n    and a \u00fean \u00e6nden heom seolven\n    \u00fee wurse gon iscenden.\n    \u00feat heo \u00feer for-leoseden\n    lif and heore saulen.\n    and \u00e6dder seo\u00f0\u00f0e la\u00f0en\n      nauer \u00e6lche londe.\n    \u00feat nauer na m[=a] nalde.\n    sel bede beoden for heore saule._'\n\n    _Brut_, Layamon, Madden's ed., ll. 25500-14.[118]\n\nIn the passage corresponding to that quoted above from Wace, Layamon\nadds the detail, that none knew the manner of the queen's death,\n_whether she had drowned herself_:\n\n    '_nuste hit mon to so\u00f0e.\n    wha\u00f0er heo weore on de\u00f0e\n    (and ou [gh]eo hinne ende)[119]\n    \u00fea heo seolf weore\n    isunken in \u00fee watere._'--ll. 28481-85.\n\nFrom these passages it is abundantly clear that Guinevere was no\nvictim of treachery, but a willing sinner; and that the tradition of\nher infidelity to her husband existed prior to the formation of the\nArthurian romantic cycle.\n\nGranting, then, that the feature formed part of the early Arthurian\nlegend, are we to consider that the version given by the chronicles\nfaithfully represents the original tradition, and that it was\nMordred who was Guinevere's original lover? I think not. It is an\nextremely curious feature of the problem, that though in each of the\npseudo-historic versions Guinevere, as we have seen, is genuinely in\nlove with Mordred, and is roundly condemned by the chroniclers for\nher conduct, in no single one of the Arthurian _romances_ is there\nany trace of the slightest affection existing between them. Mordred,\nsave as traitor in the final scenes, plays no r\u00f4le in the story; he\nis never represented as a _persona grata_ at court; in one important\nversion, as we shall see, the queen dislikes him because she suspects\nhis true relation to Arthur. Guinevere's moral character is held to be\nuntarnished, even by her _liaison_ with Lancelot.\n\nI suspect that we have here to deal with a lapse of tradition.\nMordred is not the original lover, but he represents him; and between\nthat original lover and Lancelot there intervenes a period in which\nGuinevere's lapse from virtue was smoothed over, and partially\nforgotten. It is certainly remarkable that in each of the three great\nprose branches, the _Merlin_,[120] the _Tristan_, and the _Lancelot_,\nGuinevere's moral character is apparently unaffected by her conduct\nwith Lancelot. The compilers all agree in extolling her as the noblest\nof queens and best of women. Even so aggressively virtuous and clerical\na romance as the prose _Perceval li Gallois_, though quite aware of the\nconnection, regards Guinevere in a favourable light--indeed, as morally\nsuperior to Arthur! Nor can we quote the _Queste_ as representing the\nopposite view; true, Lancelot is blamed for his relations with the\nqueen, but Guinevere, when she appears upon the scene, is treated with\nmarked respect, and the reader has an uncomfortable suspicion that\nthe writer objected to her rather as woman than as wife,--he objects\nto the sex as a whole, only forgiving Perceval's sister on account of\nher virginity. It seems clear that if the character of Guinevere has,\namong the Welsh, been handed down to posterity under the unfavourable\nlight in which Professor Rhys tells us she is popularly regarded, this\nmust be due _either_ to a tradition emanating from an earlier and\nhealthier state of society, when conjugal infidelity was not regarded\nwith complacency, _or_ to a later and more enlightened verdict on her\nrelations with Lancelot, but in no case can it be due to the influence\nof those who told the story of these relations.\n\nThe second cause will, I think, account for the nineteenth-century\npresentment of Guinevere's character; we judge her on the grounds of\nher relations with Lancelot, which we regard as blameworthy, though not\nundeserving of sympathy--in fact, we do but emphasise Malory's verdict.\n\nBut this does not account for the Welsh tradition, which, as I have\nbefore pointed out, knows practically nothing of Lancelot; that must\nrest upon other grounds, and I believe it rests upon the tradition\npreserved to us in the Mordred story.\n\nWhat this original tradition was, we can now only surmise; it belonged\nto a period of which but few and fragmentary traces survive, but I\nthink that most probably the primitive story ascribed the r\u00f4le of\nlover to Gawain. I made this suggestion some four years ago,[121]\nand subsequent study has shown me nothing to induce me to alter my\nopinion, though it has suggested sundry important modifications.\n\nI think now that Gawain and Mordred really represent the two sides of\none original personality; and that a personality very closely connected\nwith early Celtic tradition.\n\nWhat the exact nature of the relation between Gawain and early Irish\nmythic tradition may be we cannot yet say: that such a relation exists\nis practically beyond doubt.[122]\n\nAmong the characteristic features of the early Irish heroes with\nwhom Gawain is connected, we find the following: Adventurous hero\nand nephew on the female side to royal centre of cycle (Cuchulinn\nand Diarmid[123]); son to that uncle (Cuchulinn); lover of uncle's\nwife, eloping with her (Diarmid); deadly combat between father and\nson (Cuchulinn and Conlaoch). This latter incident I believe to be\nof greater importance in heroic-mythic tradition than has yet been\nrealised. As I interpret it, the father and son combat in heroic\ntradition really represents the 'slayer who shall himself be slain,'\nthe prehistoric combat of the '_Golden Bough_' (to which I have\nreferred in chap. v.) influenced by the doctrine of re-birth, as set\nforth by Mr. Nutt in vol. ii. of the _Voyage of Bran_, _i.e._ it is a\nconflict of the god with his re-born and re-juvenated self, and as such\nhas a very real place in Celtic tradition.\n\nAs we see above, we do not at present possess a version in which all\nthese characteristics are united in one hero, but they might very well\nbe so united. I think that the earlier Gawain was at once Arthur's\nnephew and son by his sister,[124] adventurous hero of the court, lover\nof the queen, and eventually slayer of his father-uncle.[125]\n\nVery probably in the original story there was some such device as the\nbeauty-spot of Diarmid, which aroused involuntary passion in every\nwoman who beheld him; or the love-potion of the Tristan story; a device\nwhereby the earlier tellers of these tales secured sympathy for the\nlovers, without lowering the character of the husband, so that Gawain,\nno less than Diarmid and Tristan, would be regarded as a gallant and\nsympathetic figure.\n\nBut the peculiar line of evolution followed by the Arthurian story,\nthe strongly ethical and Christian character which it early assumed\n(due probably to the heathen belief of the historic Arthur's genuine\nantagonists, the Saxons), made a change necessary, if Gawain was to\npreserve his position as leading hero of the legend, and I now think\nit most probable that that change was effected by divesting Gawain of\nthe characteristics incompatible with his later position, and bestowing\nthem on another personality, created for the purpose, since they could\nnot altogether be dropped out of the story. It is significant that, as\nI remarked above, the earliest tradition gives Gawain no brother save\nMordred, and Layamon remarks emphatically, '_he never had any other_.'\n\nFurther, I suspect, that exactly the same process took place with\nregard to Guinevere, and that we have a survival of it in the person of\nthat mysterious lady, the false Guinevere.\n\nI would therefore modify my original views on the subject, by saying\nthat I now think that though Gawain was Guinevere's original lover,\nLancelot did not succeed him in that r\u00f4le, in fact that Lancelot does\nnot represent the original lover at all, that that tradition is now\nrepresented by the Mordred story, and that there was a period in the\nevolution of the legend, preceding the introduction of Lancelot into\nthe cycle, during which the tradition of Guinevere's voluntary betrayal\nof her husband was dropped, and she was regarded in an altogether\nfavourable light.\n\nThe invention of the Lancelot love-story, which I think we must\nregard as in its origin an invention, was probably brought about by\ntwo causes, the growth of _Minne-dienst_, and the popularity of the\n_Tristan_ story.\n\nTo be absolutely accurate, I think we ought to consider it as\n_invented_ to satisfy the demands of the first, and _developed_ under\nthe influence of the second. That it is, as some writers have held, a\nmere imitation of the _Tristan_ story, I do not think, rather it is\nmarked by certain complex characteristics which cannot be explained on\nthe hypothesis of other than a dual source. Thus it is impossible not\nto feel that the relations of the lovers are dictated by the rules of a\nconventional etiquette rather than by the impulse of an overmastering\npassion. Even in the scene in which Lancelot first reveals his love to\nthe queen, there is no touch of genuine passion or self-abandonment;\nthe confession has been foreseen and expected, and you feel that\nGuinevere has carefully regulated her conduct in accordance with the\netiquette prescribed for such an occasion.\n\nIn the _Charrette_, this artificial character is strongly marked;\nLancelot's bearing becomes absolutely grovelling in its humility.\nThe fact that he has been guilty of a momentary hesitation before\nmounting the cart is regarded by his capricious lady as a deadly\noffence against the rules of love, and resented accordingly, while\nLancelot is so overcome by the assumed indifference of the queen that\nhe promptly attempts suicide. Compare this with the story of Gawain\nand Orgeluse in the _Parzival_. Gawain is heartily in love with the\nlady, who treats him, not merely with indifference, but with absolute\ninsolence--insolence to which Gawain opposes the most serene and\nunruffled courtesy, till the lady comes to her senses, when he reads\nher a well-deserved lecture on the correct behaviour due to a knight\nfrom a well-bred lady. Gawain is quite as well aware of the rules of\nthe game as Lancelot, but understands how to play it with becoming\ndignity, and remain master of the situation.\n\nThere are moments in the Lancelot-Guinevere story when one wonders\nwhether the whole business be not as platonic and artificial as the\nlove-rhapsodies of the would-be poets of medi\u00e6val Italy, or of certain\nof the troubadours; but the night interview in the _Charrette_,\nthe story of Lancelot's relations with King Pelles's daughter, and\nGuinevere's frantic jealousy, together with the final scene of\ndiscovery, forbid this charitable assumption.\n\nAgain, as I remarked above, the problem is complicated by the high\ncharacter ascribed to Guinevere, and the absolute lack of any real\ncondemnation of her relations with Lancelot. This is carried so\nfar that even after the final discovery the kingdom of Britain is\nthreatened by the Pope with an interdict unless Arthur will consent to\ntake back his faithless wife; while throughout the war with Lancelot\nthe sympathies of the reader are asked for the knight, not for the\nking. Nothing could well be lower than the morality of the _Lancelot_\nstory as it now stands: the cynical indifference of what we may call\nthe 'secular' sections, on the one hand, coupled with the false and\nwholly sickly pseudo-morality of the Grail sections on the other,\ncannot but be utterly distasteful to any healthy mind. For my own part,\nI must needs think the immense popularity of the _Lancelot-Grail_\nromances wholly undeserved.\n\nAnother point which is often overlooked is the discrepancy of age\nbetween Lancelot and the queen; the hero's birth takes place some\nconsiderable time after the marriage of Arthur and Guinevere. In the\nfinal war with Arthur we are told that Lancelot is twenty-one years\nGawain's junior, this latter being seventy,[126] while Arthur is ninety\nyears old! It is quite clear that we have here no tale of the genuine\nspontaneous love of youth and maiden such as we find in Tristan and\nIseult, but rather the account of the _liaison_ between a young knight\nand a lady, his superior in years and station.\n\nAll these discrepancies and difficulties in the _Lancelot_ story can, I\nbelieve, be best explained on the lines above suggested. The original\nstory of Guinevere's infidelity had been dropped out of the legend,\na reminiscence only surviving in the account of Mordred's treachery.\nShortly after the middle of the twelfth century the tone given to\ncourtly society by certain influential princesses, among them Eleanor\nof Aquitaine and England, and her daughter, Marie de Champagne,\ndemanded the introduction into the popular Arthurian story of a love\nelement, conceived after the conventions of the day. Doubtless the\npopularity of the older _Tristan_ story was an element in the matter,\nbut we must, I think, guard carefully against regarding the one as an\nimitation of the other; in colouring and characteristics the tales are,\nas I said above, diametrically opposed.[127]\n\nWhy Lancelot was selected as the queen's lover is a question which it\nis extremely difficult to answer with any certainty. When I treated\nthe subject in my _Legend of Sir Gawain_, I suggested that he simply\ntook the place of Gawain here, as elsewhere. That may have been the\ncase, but the fact that, as I now think, we have distinct evidence of\nan intervening period, or rather of intervening stages, between the\nstories, somewhat militates against this idea. The choice may have\nbeen determined by quite simple considerations. It is noticeable that\nin each of the poems in which Chr\u00e9tien mentions Lancelot previous to\nthe _Charrette_ he places him third in the list of Arthur's knights; in\n_Erec_ the two first are Gawain and Erec; in _Clig\u00e9s_ they are Gawain\nand Perceval. None of the three here named would be available: Gawain\nfrom his relationship alike to Arthur and to Mordred, besides the fact\nthat the character he early acquired as 'the Maidens' Knight' rather\nmilitated against the exclusive fidelity requisite for the post; Erec\nwas already provided with a lady-love; Perceval was impracticable,\nnot so much from the ascetic character ascribed to him, which was\nprobably[128] a later accretion, as from his essentially uncourtly\nmanners, and very slight connection with Arthur's household. It may\nvery well be that at the 'psychological moment' Lancelot, by his\nnew-won position in the cycle, was the one hero who approved himself\nfitted for the r\u00f4le, and thus reached in the character of the queen's\nlover his final evolution as an Arthurian knight.\n\nAgain, as I suggested in discussing the _Lanzelet_, it may be that some\npeculiarity in his relations with his mysterious protectress gave the\nrequired suggestion. With the knowledge at our disposal the question\ncannot be definitely answered.\n\nBut the central idea once conceived, the process of evolution proceeded\nmerrily: doubts, hesitation, despondency, on the part of the hero,\ngracious advances on that of the queen; advances on the part of other\nladies, jealousy on the part of Guinevere; despair and madness of\nLancelot; reconciliation, suspicion, detection, danger, deliverance,\nall the well-known formul\u00e6 of such a love-tale are employed, well\ninterspersed with the knightly adventures of Lancelot and other\ncompanions of the Round Table. Such a story could be expanded, _ad\ninfinitum_, and there is no doubt that it was expanded to an inordinate\nlength, as we shall find when the day comes for a critical edition of\nthe various redactions of the prose _Lancelot_.\n\nMeanwhile, what of the romance which had given the initial impulse to\nthe formation of the Lancelot story, the _Tristan_? As a matter of fact\nthe _Tristan_ was in the unenviable position of a Frankenstein. It had\ncreated, or rather helped to create, a monster which was its eventual\ndestruction. So far as incidents go, the _Lancelot_ has borrowed but\nlittle from the _Tristan_; the episode of the blood-drops, which betray\nthe nocturnal meeting of Guinevere and Lancelot in the _Charrette_,\nis generally admitted to be borrowed from the similar episode in the\n_Tristan_ poems, while the version given by Hartmann von Aue of the\nabduction of Guinevere shows points of contact with that of Iseult\nby Gand\u00een, but the incidental parallels between the stories are in\nreality very slight. Turn, however, to the prose _Tristan_, and you\nfind the influence of the _Lancelot_ absolutely dominant. Following the\nexample of Lancelot, Tristan believes himself to have lost the favour\nof his adored queen, flies to the woodland, where he goes mad; attempts\nsuicide; Iseult pours out her woes in letters to Guinevere, who is\nregarded as the noblest of queens, and a recognised authority on love!\nGuinevere invites the lovers to Arthur's court; Lancelot places his\ncastle of Joyous Garde at their disposal. The details of the beautiful\nold love poem, the poignant tragedy of Tristan and Iseult, are lost\nsight of. In a fragmentary form they still exist, but are buried out of\nsight underneath the great mass of Arthurian accretion. It is no longer\nthe love of Tristan for Iseult which is the central interest of the\nstory, but the rivalry between Tristan and Lancelot, which of the two\nshall be reckoned 'the best knight in the world.'\n\nDr. Wechssler, in his study on the various redactions of the\nLancelot-Grail cycle, points out the manner in which the two versions\nof the _Tristan_ have been worked over and modified so as to bring\nthem more into harmony with the _Lancelot_.[129] But how thoroughgoing\nwas this modification, and how disastrous to the older story, can\nonly be understood by a first-hand study of the texts. An interesting\npoint for future criticism to determine will be whether there was ever\nan earlier, and independent, prose _Tristan_, or whether the prose\nversions of this tale are not all posterior to and dependent upon the\n_Lancelot_. I do not think that any question can here arise as to the\npriority of the poetical relative to the prose form.\n\nTo sum up the conclusions arrived at in these pages, I would suggest\nthat the order of Guinevere's lovers, so far as can be determined from\nthe surviving Arthurian tradition, was as follows:\n\n1. GAWAIN.--This being indicated by Gawain's close connection with\nkindred Celtic legends; traces of the relation surviving in the\naccounts given in the _Merlin_ of Gawain as the 'queen's knight,' and\nin passages of Chr\u00e9tien's _Perceval_, Wolfram's _Parzival_, and early\nEnglish romances.[130]\n\n2. MORDRED.--Representing a period when such a relationship was held\nincompatible with Gawain's character as chivalrous hero, and the more\nunamiable features of the primitive conception were transferred to\nanother character who was regarded as Gawain's only brother. The later\nstages of this period are preserved in the _Chronicles_.\n\n3. Intervening period wherein Guinevere undergoes same process as\nGawain, and false Guinevere is evolved. The queen's character is\nregarded as irreproachable and Mordred as an unwelcome suitor. Strong\ntraces of this period remain, both in the earlier metrical and prose\nromances, and complicate the subsequent presentment.\n\n4. LANCELOT.--His introduction in this character being due (_a_) to\nsocial conditions in courtly circles, (_b_) to desire to create within\nthe Arthurian cycle a love-tale which should rival in popularity the\nwell-known and independent _Tristan_ story. Mordred, however, remains\nin the story, and he, rather than Lancelot, should be considered as\nrepresenting the original 'infidelity-motif.'[131]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE PROSE LANCELOT--LANCELOT AND THE GRAIL\n\n\nWe now approach the most difficult and complicated part of an\nexceptionally difficult and complicated question; rather, to be more\naccurate, we are now confronted with the union of two questions, each\nof them, in a high degree, intricate and obscure. We have not yet\nsucceeded in solving the problems connected with the evolution of the\nGrail romances; we can scarcely be said to have begun the examination\nof the _Lancelot_ legend; the union of the two might well appear to\npresent such insuperable difficulties that the critic might shrink\nfrom grappling at close quarters with so formidable a task. And yet\nit may well be that this union of the two legends, which at the first\nglance appears so seriously to increase our difficulties, is precisely\nthat factor which shall play the most important part in their final\nsolution; that inasmuch as the _Lancelot_ legend was the dominant\nfactor in the later cyclic development of Arthurian romances, the\ndisentangling of this particular thread will be the clue which sets\nfree the other members of the cycle, and enables them to fall once more\ninto their original and relative positions.\n\nThe elements composing the Grail problem are so well known that here I\nneed do no more than briefly recapitulate them. The Grail romances are\npractically divided into two families: that dealing with the history\nof the relic--the _Early History_ romances as they are very generally\ncalled; and that dealing with the search for the relic, the _Queste_,\nwhich latter family is again sharply divided into two sections\ndifferentiated from each other by the personality of the hero--the\nPerceval and Galahad _Questes_. I am not sure whether we ought not to\ngo a step further and recognise a third clearly defined family, that of\nthe Gawain _Queste_. Mr. Nutt in his _Studies on the Legend of the Holy\nGrail_[132] partly recognises this, but does not, I think, attribute\nsufficient importance to the matter, regarding Gawain as an understudy\nof Perceval. I incline to think that before the question is finally\nsolved we shall require to study very closely the variants which regard\nGawain as Grail hero, and compare them with the _Perceval_ versions. I\nam not sure that we shall find the result quite what we expect!\n\nSo far criticism has confined itself to the question of the relation\nexisting between the _Early History_ and _Queste_ versions, and that\nbetween the two main families of the _Queste_. In this latter case\nthe general consensus of opinion is to regard Perceval, whose story\nis marked by certain definite and widely spread folk-lore features,\nas an earlier Grail hero than Galahad, whose _Queste_ is strongly\nallegorising and mystical in character.\n\nIt is this latter _Queste_ which here mainly concerns us, but we shall\nfind that before we are in a position to examine it closely we must\ndeal with certain features both of the Gawain and Perceval variants.\n\nThe _Gawain_ versions will not detain us long. There is, correctly\nspeaking, no definite _Gawain-Grail_ romance, but we find records of\nGawain's visits to the Grail castle scattered throughout the latter\npart of the _Conte del Graal_, _Diu Kr\u00f4ne_ (where he is really the\nGrail hero), prose _Lancelot_, and Dutch _Lancelot_ (this latter, as\nwe shall see, differing in very important particulars from the prose\n_Lancelot_). In each case these adventures are marked by peculiarly\nwild and fantastic features, sometimes apparently borrowed from the\nhero's feats at the _Ch\u00e2teau Merveil_, as recorded by Chr\u00e9tien and\nWolfram, sometimes entirely independent of those feats, but strongly\nreminiscent of Perceval's experiences in the Grail castle. In the\ndistinctively _Lancelot_ romances, where Gawain, Lancelot, and Bohort\nall attempt the adventures of Corbenic, Gawain is the first to do so,\nand his experiences are repeated, with a more fortunate result, in the\ncase of the other two. The _Grand S. Graal_, which gives an account of\nthe founding of Corbenic, and the establishment of its marvels, states\nthat none are to escape with their lives till _Gawain_ shall come, and\nhe shall receive shame and dishonour.[133] This same romance makes\nGawain a descendant of Joseph of Arimathea.\n\nI think it is quite clear that the Grail castle as depicted in\nthe later romances is really a combination of the features of two\noriginally distinct accounts, the Grail castle of the earlier Perceval\nstory, and the _Ch\u00e2teau Merveil_ of Gawain legend. The marvellous\nfeatures which the Galahad-Lancelot _Queste_ emphasises have clearly\nbeen borrowed from the Gawain romances, and are therefore to be\nconsidered as younger than these.\n\nDr. Wechssler's study, _\u00dcber die verschiedenen Redaktionen des Robert\nvon Borron zugeschriebenen Graal-Lancelot-Cyklus_, to which I have\npreviously referred, is of value in helping us to the next stage of our\ninvestigation. The writer points out that the redactors of the prose\nromances we possess were familiar with two compilations, practically\ncovering the entire ground of Arthurian romance, one of which, the\nearlier, was ascribed to Robert de Borron, the other, the later, to\nWalter Map; or rather, as the author is careful to write throughout,\n_pseudo_-Borron and _pseudo_-Map.[134] The original cycle, which the\nwriter designates _A._, consisted of _Livre del Graal_,[135] _Merlin_,\n_Suite Merlin_, _Lancelot_, _Queste_, and _Mort Artur_, but only traces\nof the _Borron_ cycle remain, the romances as we have them belonging to\nthe pseudo-_Map_ redaction.[136]\n\nFurther, Dr. Wechssler claims to have detected clear traces of two\nsubsidiary cycles formed by selections from the original; redaction\n_B._ consisting of the _Livre del Graal_, the _Merlin_, and _Suite\nMerlin_, and the _Queste_ and _Mort Artur_. The redaction _B._ he\nconsiders the earlier shortened version of the pseudo-Borron cycle.[137]\n\nA still later and shortened redaction was composed of the _Merlin_ and\n_Suite Merlin_, _Queste_ and _Mort Artur_; this also being attributed\nto the pseudo-Borron.[138]\n\nAccording to Dr. Wechssler the distinguishing mark which separates the\npseudo-Borron from the pseudo-Map cycle is the introduction into the\nformer of the personages of the _Tristan_ legend absent from the Map\ncycle.\n\nThis is very clear, and very interesting, but let us wait a minute\nbefore we examine it, and see how, in the hands of its own author,\nthe theory works out. The study to which I have just referred was\npublished in 1895; in 1898 another study appeared from the same\npen, this time dealing exclusively with the Grail romances,[139] in\nwhich Dr. Wechssler practically adopted the standpoint of Professor\nBirch-Hirschfeld, that the Grail is _ab initio_ a Christian symbol, but\nat the same time endeavoured to harmonise this view with that which\nregards the Grail as originally a heathen talisman, while, in the same\nway, he claimed to discover a _vi\u00e2 media_ between the conflicting\nvariants of the _Queste_, presenting us, as the result, with a curious\ncomposite hero, who was named Galahad, but whose story was the story of\nPerceval.\n\nI do not know if the author was himself really satisfied with the\nresult of his ingenuity; I am convinced no other student of the Grail\nromances was; but the interest of the study for us lies in this,\nhow did a scholar who three years before had published a really\nsound, solid, and valuable piece of criticism, such as that on the\nGrail-Lancelot cycle, come to wander so far astray in the quagmire of\npure hypothesis and unfounded assumption? Simply and solely, I believe,\nbecause it had never occurred to Dr. Wechssler that the _Lancelot_\nromances _could_ be associated with any _Queste_ other than the Galahad\n_Queste_. He saw, and saw rightly, that the _Lancelot_ story played a\nvery important r\u00f4le in the cyclic evolution of the Arthurian romance;\nhe saw that it was closely connected with a Grail _Queste_, and never\nsuspecting that the hero of that _Queste_ could be other than Galahad,\nwhile at the same time he recognised the priority of certain elements\nof the Perceval story, he endeavoured, with a fatal result, to combine\nthe two, and evolve such a _Queste_ as would suit the earlier redaction\nof the _Lancelot_ story.\n\nAnd yet the key to the truth was in his hand all the time, had he but\nknown it. He knew M. Paulin Paris's '_Romans de la Table Ronde_';\non p. 87 of vol. iv. the writer quotes a passage from a MS. of the\n_Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale_, to which I have previously referred, but\nwhich is of such paramount importance for the question before us that I\nmake no apology for repeating it here: '_Et le grant conte de Lancelot\nconvient repairier en la fin \u00e0 Perceval qui est chi\u00e9s et la fin de\ntos les contes \u00e8s autres chevaliers. Et tout sont branches de lui_\n(c'est-\u00e0-dire se rapportent \u00e0 Perceval[140]) _qu'il acheva li grant\nqueste. Et li contes Perceval meismes est une branche del haut conte\ndel Graal qui est chi\u00e9s de tos les contes_' (MS. 751, fol. 144-48).\n\nTo this quotation M. Paulin Paris added the remark, 'Mais dans la\n_Qu\u00eate du Saint Graal_, Perceval n'est plus le h\u00e9ros qui d\u00e9couvre\nle Graal et accomplit les derni\u00e8res aventures. Galaad, le chevalier\nvierge, fils naturel de Lancelot, est substitu\u00e9 au _Perceval_ des\nderni\u00e8res laisses de Lancelot. La manie des prolongements aura conduit\n\u00e0 ces modifications des premi\u00e8res conceptions. Et c'est la difficult\u00e9\nde distinguer ces retouches successives qui a donn\u00e9 \u00e0 la critique tant\nde fils \u00e0 retordre.'\n\nThe position could scarcely be more clearly stated to-day; one can\nonly regret that this luminous hint of the great French scholar\nshould have remained so long unfruitful. When the passage first\nattracted my attention, which it did some years ago, I made a note\nof it as important for the theory of the early evolution of the\n_Perceval_ story, but not till I had read Dr. Wechssler's study of the\n_Grail-Lancelot_ cycles did its immense importance as evidence for\nthe evolution of the Arthurian cycle, as a whole, dawn upon me. Yet\nhere we have a piece of evidence of the very highest value, a direct\nand categorical statement that at one period, and that an advanced\none (otherwise it would not be termed 'le _grant_ conte'), of its\nevolution, the _Lancelot_ legend was connected with and subordinate to\nthe _Perceval_ story, and that in its full and complete Grail-Queste\nform.\n\nIn other words, the distinction between the cycles respectively\nattributed to Borron and to Map is not only the presence or absence\nof the personages of the _Tristan_ story (as Dr. Wechssler supposes),\nbut the much more important and radical distinction that, in the first\nthe _Queste_ was originally a Perceval, in the second always a Galahad\n_Queste_. It is surprising that this distinction had not occurred to\nthe original framer of the thesis, any one familiar with the genuine\nBorron romances must be aware that the _Queste_ they presuppose _is_\na Perceval _Queste_. Probably the disinclination, to which I have\nreferred above, to connect Lancelot with any Grail hero save his own\nson had very much to do with the matter; further, I do not think that\nDr. Wechssler had formed a clear idea of the process of evolution\nof the cycle he postulated, which he represents as progressing by\ncontraction, _i.e._ the earliest form being the fullest, or why that\ncycle should have been connected with the name of Robert de Borron. In\nfact, he reserves the discussion of the questions concerning original\nformation for another study.\n\nNow I would submit that the rational progress of evolution is by\nexpansion, not by contraction, and that the name of Robert de Borron\nbecame associated with a cycle representing the _ensemble_ of Arthurian\nromance because there was a smaller cycle which was really the work of\nthe genuine Robert de Borron, which smaller cycle formed the germ of\nthe later and more extended body of romance.[141]\n\nScholars have long ago recognised that the three works attributed to\nRobert de Borron, and which, as we possess them, probably represent\nprose versions of that writer's original poems, are closely connected\nwith each other, and have every appearance of having been intended to\nform one consecutive work. These three are the _Joseph of Arimathea_,\n_Merlin_, and _Perceval_, which latter is only represented by one MS.\nand is what we generally call the 'Didot' _Perceval_.[142]\n\nNow if we examine the Didot _Perceval_, as printed by Mr. Hucher in\nvol. i. of _Le Saint Graal_, we shall find that the last twenty pages,\nsucceeding Perceval's achievement of the Grail Quest, are devoted to\nArthur's expedition to France, his conquest of Frollo and war with\nRome, succeeded by Mordred's treachery, the final battle and Arthur's\ndeparture for Avalon--in fact, precisely the contents of the _Mort\nArtur_, which, as we know, generally follows the _Queste_, only\nrelated in a more concise and summary manner;[143] and one more in\naccordance with the _Chronicles_ than is the case with the other prose\nromances.\n\nI think it is quite clear that the _Perceval_, whether in the original\nform in which Borron wrote it or not, as we possess it, shows distinct\ntraces of having formed the concluding portion of a cycle.\n\nIt is quite obvious that a genuine Borron cycle, such as suggested\nabove, would contain the germ of later expansion. Thus the _Joseph of\nArimathea_ certainly appears to represent what we may perhaps call the\nfirst draft of the _Grand S. Graal_. _Merlin_ was certainly expanded\ninto the _Merlin_ Vulgate and _Suite_. _Perceval_ represents _Queste_\nand _Mort Artur_. Only the _Lancelot_ is unrepresented, and with that\nI do not think the original 'Borron' cycle had anything to do.\n\nThe introduction of the _Lancelot_ probably belongs, as Dr. Wechssler\nsuggests, to a subsequent writer, who borrowed the more famous name,\nto the pseudo-Borron; and from the quotation given by M. Paulin Paris,\nI should think it likely that, at first, the juxtaposition of the\n_Lancelot_ and _Perceval-Grail_ stories was purely external, and that\nthey did not affect each other by contamination. The Didot _Perceval_\nmay well have been the _Queste_ of the earliest pseudo-Borron, whether\nor not it represents the _Queste_ of the genuine Borron cycle.[144]\n\nBut the growing popularity of the _Lancelot_ story would render such\na contamination inevitable, and I am strongly tempted to believe that\nin that perplexing romance, the prose _Perceval li Gallois_, we have\nthe _Queste_ of a later pseudo-Borron cyclic redaction. The perplexing\nfeatures of this version are well known: the whole tone is highly\necclesiastic, there are numerous references to an earlier Perceval\nstory, Lancelot plays an important r\u00f4le, yet Galahad is unknown, and\nthere are certain mysterious folk-lore features not met with elsewhere.\nHitherto no one has succeeded in satisfactorily placing this romance. I\nwould suggest that it represents the _Queste_ of a late pseudo-Borron\n_Lancelot-Perceval-Grail_ cycle; and I am encouraged in this\nsupposition by the fact that this romance knows the Questing-Beast, a\nmysterious creation only found in the _Suite Merlin_ and the _Tristan\nPalamedes_ romances. Now the _Suite Merlin_ claims to be by Robert\nde Borron, and the introduction of the _Tristan_ figures into the\nArthurian story is, as we saw above, held by Dr. Wechssler to be the\ndistinctive 'note' of the Borron-cycle.[145]\n\nThis conclusion is further strengthened when we examine the r\u00f4le\nassigned to Lancelot in these two romances. In each case he is one\nof the most distinguished knights at Arthur's court, but he is much\nless _en \u00e9vidence_ in the Didot _Perceval_ than in the _Perceval li\nGallois_. In the first-named romance he is represented as overthrowing\nall the knights of the Round Table, till the appearance of Perceval,\nby whom he is himself overthrown. He would thus appear to rank next to\nthe hero of the tale and to be the superior of Gawain. So far as we can\ngather, the order of superiority runs thus: Perceval, Lancelot, Gawain,\nYvain. But he is, apparently, not of those who start on the Grail\nquest; nor is there any indication of his _liaison_ with Guinevere. But\nthe author mentions among the knights '_le fiz \u00e0 la fille \u00e0 la femme de\nMalehot_.'[146] We do not know the lady of Malehault save through the\nmedium of the prose _Lancelot_.\n\nIn the _Perceval li Gallois_ (_Perlesvaus_ Professor Heinzel prefers to\ncall it), Lancelot is one of the three best knights in the world, the\nother two being Perceval and Gawain; he takes part in the Grail quest,\nbut on account of his sinful relations with Guinevere is not worthy to\nbehold the sacred talisman, which does not appear, even in a veiled\nform, during his stay at the Fisher King's castle, whereas it appears\nclearly to Gawain. The position, so far as Lancelot is concerned, is\nthus nearer to the presentment of the Galahad _Queste_ than is the\nDidot _Perceval_. This last-named, we have seen above, shows clear\nindications of betraying a cyclic redaction; these indications, though\ndiffering in form, are not less clear in the _Perceval li Gallois_.\nThe concluding passage runs thus: '_Apr\u00e8s iceste estoire commence li\ncontes si comme Brians des Illes guerpi le roi Artus por Lancelot que\nil n'aimoit mie et comme il as\u00e9ura le roi Claudas qui le roi Ban de\nB\u00e9noic toli sa terre. Si parole cis contes comment il le conquist et\npar quel mani\u00e8re, et si com Galobrus de la Vermeille lande vint \u00e0 la\ncort le roi Artus por aidier Lancelot, quas il estoit de son lignage\ncist contes est mout lons et mout aventreus et poisanz._'[147]\n\nIn quoting this passage, Professor Heinzel remarks: 'Auch der\n_Perlesvaus_ ist einem gr\u00f6sseren Romanwerk einverleibt, aus dem die\nHandschrift von Mons den _Perlesvaus_ ausgeschrieben hat. Was ihm\nfolgte muss eine Art _Lancelot_ gewesen sein.'[148]\n\nThere is a further and interesting possibility before us. The compilers\nmay--in one instance, I think, we can show reason to believe that they\ndid--have incorporated the Chr\u00e9tien _Perceval_ (or a version closely\nakin to it) into their cycles as representing the _Queste_.\n\nIn the work of preparing these studies I felt that I ought to leave no\navailable version of the _Lancelot_ unexplored, and therefore undertook\nto read carefully the immense compilation generally known as the Dutch\n_Lancelot_. Well was it for me that I did not shrink from the task! I\nhad not read far before I began to suspect that the text represented\nby this translation was, in every respect, a fuller and a better text\nthan that used by Dr. Sommer in his Malory collation; in the _Queste_\nsection in particular was this the case. In the succeeding chapters\nI intend to go fully into what is, I believe, in the interests of\nArthurian criticism, a very important discovery. Here I will only say\nthat I eventually found that the text of the Dutch _Lancelot_, of the\nprinted version of the prose _Lancelot_ Lenoire, 1533 (which, as I\nhave remarked before, Dr. Sommer does not chronicle), and Malory's\n_Lancelot_ and _Queste_ sections all stand together as representing a\nmuch fuller and more accurate text than that of the prose _Lancelot_\n1513, or the _Queste_ MSS. consulted by Dr. Furnivall for his edition\nof that romance. Whether we have not here an important part of the\n_un_shortened pseudo-Borron-_Lancelot_ into which the Map _Queste_ has\nbeen introduced is a matter for careful investigation. The point to\nwhich at the present moment I would draw attention is, that the Dutch\n_Lancelot_ incorporates a very considerable section of a _Perceval_\nromance, which bears a very close resemblance to Chr\u00e9tien's poem, with\nthis curious difference, that it gives an account of the achieving of\nthe adventures named by the Grail messenger, which, so far as I know,\nis found nowhere else. This section, which occupies over two thousand\nlines, demands a special study, but for us its significance lies in\nthis that it seems to point to the conclusion that in the evolution of\na _Lancelot-Perceval_ cycle (the existence of which I think we may hold\nfor proven) the compilers allowed themselves considerable latitude in\nthe _Queste_ section. There were several Perceval _Questes_ to select\nfrom, and they took which they preferred, even pressing the original,\nmanifestly independent, _Perceval_ romances into their service. I\nsuspect that this variation in the Perceval _Queste_ helped towards its\nsuppression in favour of the Galahad variant, which had the advantage\nof existing only in one form, though the cause mainly operating was an\nentirely different one.[149]\n\nSo far then we have traced the evolution of the _Lancelot_ story, and\nfound that at one period of its development, and that an advanced\nperiod, it was connected with a Grail story, which regarded Perceval as\nits hero and knew nothing of Lancelot's son, Galahad. How then did the\nlatter appear upon the scene, and in what light are we to regard the\nromances dealing with him?\n\nI have studied the Galahad _Queste_ closely, and have compared\nversions gathered from widely different sources, French originals,\nand translations, and I am distinctly of the opinion that we possess\nthe romance practically in its original form. It is a homogeneous\ncomposition, it is not a compilation from different sources and by\ndifferent hands. There is no trace of an earlier and later redaction,\nsave only in the directly edifying passages, which in some cases appear\nto have undergone amplification. The difference between the versions is\nnot that of incident or sequence, scarcely even of detail, but rather\nof the superior clearness and coherence with which the incidents are\nrelated in some of the versions as compared with others. I am strongly\ninclined to think that there is no peculiarity in any of the _Queste_\nMSS. which cannot quite well be ascribed to the greater or less\naccuracy of the copyist, or his greater or less taste for discourses of\nedification.\n\nNor is the _Queste_ by the same hand as was responsible for the final\nmoulding of the _Lancelot_ story; though so closely connected with,\nindeed dependent upon, that story, it yet in many points stands in\nflagrant contradiction with it, and there is little doubt that the\n_Lancelot_ would gain greatly in coherence if the _Queste_ were\nomitted, and the passages preparatory to it eliminated from the\noriginal romance. These remarks apply also to the _Grand S. Graal_ in\nits present form, though, as we shall see, this last named romance does\nnot stand on precisely the same footing as the _Queste_ with which it\nis now closely connected.\n\nThe following facts seem to stand out clearly. Both these Grail\nromances, the _Queste_ especially, depend _entirely_ for their interest\non Lancelot. They are the glorification of his race as that from which\nthe Grail Winner is predestined to spring. The genealogies, however\nthey may vary (as they do in the different versions), are all devoted\nto this object. They are most closely connected with, and practically\npresuppose each other; yet admitting, as I think we must admit, that\nthey do not represent the original form of the Grail story, they do not\nproduce the impression of romances which have been worked over with the\nview of substituting a new hero for the one in whose honour the tale\nwas originally constructed.\n\nNevertheless in the case of the _Grand S. Graal_ we must, I think,\nadmit imitation; even as in the original Borron cycle the _Joseph of\nArimathea_ was designed as an introduction to the life and deeds of\nthe Grail Winner, Perceval, so in this, the latest form of the cycle,\nthe introduction to the _Queste_ is built upon and expanded from the\n_Joseph_. The introduction is based upon and follows the lines of the\nold introduction, but the _Queste_ is a new _Queste_.\n\nLet us be quite clear on this point. Galahad may have in a measure\nsupplanted Perceval, but he has neither dispossessed nor robbed him.\nHe has taken over no one of his characteristics, no one of his feats.\nSuch traces of the Perceval story as remain are found in connection\nwith Perceval himself; he, too, achieves the Grail _Queste_. He has\nundergone a change, and a change for the worse, but that was quite\nas much due to the evolution of the Grail as a Christian talisman as\nto the invention of Galahad. The hero of the Didot _Perceval_ and\n_Perceval li Gallois_ is as inferior to the hero of Chr\u00e9tien and\nWolfram as is the Perceval of the Galahad _Queste_. The truth is that\nPerceval is still the Grail hero, but he shares that character with\nanother whose invention is due to special and easily discernible\ncauses.[150]\n\nThe point of view of the writer of the _Queste_ is not that of the\ncompilers of the _Lancelot_. As I remarked in the previous chapter,\nthe view taken by the _Lancelot_ of the relations between the hero and\nthe queen is frankly unmoral. Neither is blamed for his or her action,\nneither is apparently conscious of wrong-doing. In the _Queste_\nLancelot's conscience is sorely vexed, and his sin insisted upon. The\ncompilers of the _Lancelot_ have a very courtly respect for women--the\nauthor of the _Queste_ despises them utterly. The interest of the\n_Lancelot_ lies in the relation between the sexes--the respective\nduties of knight and lady--the theme which inspires the _Queste_ is\ntheir abiding separation.\n\nAgain, compare the treatment of the various characters of the story in\nthe two respective sections. Next to Galahad and Perceval, the hero\nof the _Queste_ is Bohort (Bors). But for a single youthful lapse he\nyields in nothing to those doughty champions of celibacy: his purity,\nalike of body and soul, is emphatically insisted upon; his confession\nfills the priest who receives it with a fervour of admiration; yet\nit is precisely this saintly youth who, in the section preceding and\nfollowing the _Queste_ (the _Lancelot_ and the _Mort Artur_), is the\nconfidant and go-between of Lancelot and Guinevere. It is Bohort who\nseeks Lancelot at the secret bidding of the queen, Bohort who carries\nlove-tokens between them, who arranges meetings. It is he and Lionel\nwho consult the queen as to the delicate question of Lancelot's future\nrelations with the lady who has cured him from the illness caused by\ndrinking the poisoned spring; he who is the confidant of Guinevere's\nindignation at the supposed love-affair between Lancelot and the maiden\nof Escarloet; and if he tries to prevent the last fatal meeting between\nthem it is with no view of hindering a wrong to his lord Arthur, but\nsolely because he has reason to suspect the trap laid for the lovers.\nThe two presentments not simply fail to agree, but stand in flat\ncontradiction with each other.\n\nLionel, again, is throughout the _Lancelot_ a valiant knight, warmly\nattached alike to his brother and to his cousin. Like Bohort he takes\nLancelot's part on every occasion, with him he quits the court when\nthe queen, in an access of jealousy, banishes Lancelot. When he is\nfinally slain both Bohort and Lancelot are overcome with grief. But the\n_Queste_ paints him in the most repulsive colours: violent, brutal, and\nunreasoning to a degree. He is so indignant with his brother for going\nto the rescue of a maiden rather than of himself (when both are equally\nin danger) that he does his best to kill him in revenge. He does kill\nan unoffending hermit, and a fellow knight of the Round Table who would\nintervene, and finally it needs a special interposition of Providence\nto part the two brothers before a fatal issue to the conflict forced on\nby Lionel has taken place.\n\nHector, Lancelot's half-brother, who in the later _Lancelot_ story\nis one of the bravest and most distinguished knights of the court,\nis in the _Queste_ held up to scorn and rebuke; while the author of\nthis romance has no colours too black in which to paint the character\nof Gawain, who, though deposed from his position of chief hero, is,\nthroughout the _Lancelot_ proper, treated with the greatest respect. He\nis entirely loved and trusted by king and queen, and if his valour is\nin the long-run surpassed by that of Lancelot, the compiler is careful\nto preserve his honour intact by pointing out, first, that he never\nrecovered from the severe wounds received in the war with Galehault,\nsecond, that he was over twenty years Lancelot's senior. The final\nconflict between them, the most deadly in which Lancelot was ever\nengaged, was fought when Gawain was seventy-two and Arthur ninety-two\nyears of age; further, as we shall see presently, in some versions the\nconclusion is more of the character of a drawn battle than of a defeat\nfor Gawain.[151]\n\nIt is, I think, quite clear that the Galahad-Grail romances are the\nwork of another hand than that responsible for the main body of the\n_Lancelot_ cycle; and the work of one who was at small pains to\nharmonise his story with the branches already existing. It is indeed\ndoubtful whether the writer had any thorough acquaintance with the\nlegend as a whole. It is noteworthy that the points of contact with\nwhat we may perhaps call the 'secular' section are all restricted to\nthe _later_ part of the story, that commencing with what M. Paulin\nParis called the _Agravain_ section. Between the _Grand S. Graal_, the\nGalahad _Queste_, and the later part of the _Lancelot_ there are a\nnumber of what we may call cross-references, the precise value of which\nwill be very difficult to determine. But they do not stray outside a\ncertain limit--they are restricted to Lancelot, the Knight of the\nRound Table, the queen's lover, and father of the Grail Winner--they\ndo not appear to know Lancelot the _prot\u00e9g\u00e9_ of the Lady of the Lake.\nIn this character the Grail romances ignore him, nor do they appear to\nknow anything of his most famous adventure, the freeing of Guinevere\nfrom Meleagant.[152]\n\nIt is the later and not the earlier _Lancelot_ story which is known\nto the writer of the _Queste_; and the more we study the romance the\nplainer this becomes. The _Lancelot_ romance may really be divided\ninto two great divisions, the _Enfances_, _Charrette_, and _Galehault_\nsection, which is practically unaffected by the _Grail_ tradition,\nthough it shows evident signs of contact with the _Perceval_ story; and\nthe latter portion which (saving the _Mort Artur_, unaffected except by\nthe addition of the concluding _Queste_ paragraph, easily removed) has\nbeen redacted under the influence of the Galahad-Grail accretion.\n\nTill the versions concerned have been critically examined we cannot\ndetermine the value or gauge the evidence of the matter common to\nthe _Lancelot_, _Grand S. Graal_, and _Queste_. The most noticeable\ninstances are the following: the keeping of the Grail at Castle\nCorbenic, the founding of which is related in the _Grand S. Graal_;\nthe characters of King Pelles and his father, with regard to whom the\nevidence varies,--as a rule, the character of the Fisher King appears\nto be confined to the former, that of the Maimed King to the latter\n(the author of the _Queste_ appears to have no idea that the two\ncharacters are one and the same);--the daughter of King Pelles, and his\nson Eliezer. This latter is, I think, peculiar to the Lancelot-Galahad\nstory, the Perceval versions do not know him. The adventure of the\nbroken sword borne by Eliezer, told both in _Lancelot_ and _Grand S.\nGraal_, and achieved, though without satisfactory explanation, in\n_Queste_.[153] The Boiling Fountain and Bleeding Tomb adventures,\nalso told in the two first, partly achieved in the _Lancelot_, and\nachievement summarily announced in _Queste_. The Perilous Cemetery,\norigin stated in _Grand S. Graal_, vainly attempted by Gawain and\nHector in _Lancelot_, final achievement barely recorded in _Queste_.\n\nIn these last instances the story may well have been in the _Lancelot_,\nand taken over by the compiler of _Grand S. Graal_; the _Queste_ makes very\nlittle of them; they only serve to keep up the connection between the\n'secular' and 'religious' sections.\n\nWith regard to the Corbenic-Grail adventures, I am inclined, as I\nsaid before, to look upon them as due to the influence of the Gawain\nstory, and as already existing, in a purely adventurous form, in the\n_Lancelot_, before it was formally united to the Grail Quest.\n\nOn the whole, I decidedly lean to the opinion that _Grand S. Graal_ and\n_Queste_ are by one and the same hand--the one based upon and expanded\nfrom an older poem, the other a practically new invention, the two\nbeing designed to replace the _Joseph of Arimathea_ and _Perceval_ of\nthe earlier Grail cycle. As I said above, the author was very little\nconcerned about the harmony of his work. So long as by a superficial\nrearrangement and interpolation of incidental adventures he could\nproduce an appearance of harmony, he cared nothing at all about the\nmore important questions of continuity of treatment, and preservation\nof tone and character. The result is that his work, which stands\npractically as he left it, is in flagrant contradiction with the story\nit is designed to complete.\n\nBut what was the motive which led to the setting aside of the earlier\nPerceval _Queste_, and what the causes which determined the particular\nform assumed by its successor?\n\nI do not think they are difficult to detect.\n\nDuring the later years of the twelfth and earlier years of the\nthirteenth century we see two stories in process of gradual\nevolution--the Perceval-Grail story and the Lancelot legend. One early\ntook a decidedly mystical and ecclesiastical bent, the other became\nmore and more worldly and secular. The two appear to have had an equal\nhold on popular imagination, they early came into touch with each\nother, but they never really blended. The _Lancelot_, as the younger,\nborrowed at the outset certain features from the _Perceval_, but it\nretained its own distinctive character; while the elder story slowly\nchanged, the Grail, at first a subordinate element in the story,\ngradually but surely dominating the tale, which became more and more\necclesiastical, while the hero became more and more conventional.[154]\n\nBut at a certain point it became evident that these lines of tradition\ncould no longer remain parallel, they must coalesce, or the one must\nyield to the other. The Grail quest had become the most popular\nadventure of Arthur's court, one after another the knights were being\ndrawn into the mystic circle; how could the most popular and most\nvaliant of the knights of the Round Table, for this Lancelot had now\nbecome, remain outside the chosen group? It was plain that Lancelot\nmust take part in the Grail quest; it was equally plain that the first\nknight of the court could not be allowed to come out of the ordeal with\nany detriment to his prestige; yet the Grail demanded purity of life,\nand Lancelot was the queen's lover. More, the queen's lover he must\nremain or forfeit his hold on popular sympathy.\n\nHow was it possible to preserve intact at once Lancelot's superiority\nand the purity of the Christian talisman? Only in one way: by giving\nhim a son who should achieve the quest and then vanish, leaving\nLancelot still _facile princeps_ among the knights of the Round Table,\nwith the added glory of having been the father of the Grail Winner.\n\nBut this son could not be the child of Guinevere. The offspring of a\nguilty _liaison_ could not be the winner of the sacrosanct talisman;\nyet Lancelot must be faithful to his queen--how solve this problem? The\nstory in its primitive form gave the hint for the required development.\nWho more fitted to become the mother of the Grail Winner than the\nfair maiden who filled the office of Grail-bearer?[155] The obvious\npropriety of such a relationship was bound sooner or later to strike\nthe imagination of some redactor. The Arthurian story already possessed\nthe machinery by which Lancelot could become father of the elect child,\nwhile remaining Guinevere's lover; Brisane had but to do for Elaine\nwhat Merlin did for Uther, and the difficulty was overcome. Moreover,\n_Helaine_ was, in the old story, the name of the Grail Winner's father,\nnothing more easy than to bestow the same name on the new hero's\nmother. All this was only a question of clever adjustment of already\nexisting factors.\n\nPerceval, of course, was in possession, but the later development\nof his story, which had converted him from a genuine, faulty, but\nloving and lovable human being, true man and faithful husband, into\nan aggressively proselytising and persecuting celibate, had made it\npossible for him still to retain a place in the romance; he could\nact as second to Galahad, and, like him, disappear, the quest once\nachieved. But having thus disposed in Lancelot's interest of the two\nwho might have seriously challenged his fame as a knight, Perceval,\nthe real, Galahad, the vicarious (for I think we can only regard him\nas his father's representative), achiever of the quest, it became\nnecessary to add a third, who should bring back to court the tidings\nof their success. It is quite obvious, from the point of view of the\n_Lancelot_ story, that Perceval and Galahad _could not_ be permitted to\nreturn. The third was easily found in the person of Lancelot's nearest\nrelative, the knight who, his shield unstained by the bar-sinister\nwhich marked that of Hector, had been gradually rising in popular\nfavour; Bohort owes his position in the _Queste_ to his position in the\n_Lancelot_ proper.\n\nThe evolution of this character has not, I believe, attracted much\nattention hitherto, but it is one of the most remarkable features of\nthe _Lancelot_ story. In the earliest versions, represented by the\n_Lanzelet_, etc., he is not known at all.[156] When he first appears\nhe plays but a small part, gradually his r\u00f4le becomes more and more\nprominent, till in the later portion of the prose _Lancelot_ he has\nbecome a very efficient understudy to the hero, even surpassing in\nvalour Gawain himself. Thus, on the return of the knights from one\nof their numerous quests in search of Lancelot, when they are called\nupon to rehearse their adventures, in order that a record of them\nmay be made, it is decided that their rank, in order of merit, is\nBohort, Gawain, Hector, Gaheriet, Lionel, and Baudemagus. Gawain and\nhis brother, the representatives of the older stratum of Arthurian\ntradition, are the only two who can compete with the all-conquering\nrace of Ban, and the bosom friend of that race, Baudemagus.\n\nFinally he is represented as the father of a son who bids fair to\nrival his ancestors in valour. When a critical study of the Lancelot\nMSS. is seriously undertaken, I think we shall find that the position\noccupied by Bohort in the story will afford a valuable indication of\nthe relative age of the redaction.\n\nI am quite prepared to find that among the objections which will\ndoubtless be advanced against the theory here advocated one will be\nthat it is too complete in detail, too 'cut and dried,' if I may use\nthe term, to be free from suspicion. To this I would answer that I\nbelieve in examining the later stages of Arthurian romance we must\nfollow a somewhat different process from that which we employ for the\nearlier. The Arthurian poems, being in a large measure independent,\nand never having formed part of a 'cyclic' whole, may well be studied\nseparately, in, and for, themselves, though of course we would not\nleave out of sight variants of the same story. But the later prose\nromances, those which have avowedly formed parts of a cycle, must be\nstudied, not separately, but in conjunction with the other romances\nwith which they were connected. They are in the position of the\nparts of a dissected puzzle, the study of one part by itself will\nnever really help us to understand the whole, it is only by studying\ncollective sections, and trying continually new combinations, that we\ncan hope to find the original disposition of the parts.\n\nIt is no use to study the _Queste_ romance by itself. If we wish\nto know how it stands with regard to the _Lancelot_, we must study\nit _with_ the _Lancelot_, and if we do this certain points become\nabsolutely clear. The _Queste_ pre-supposes a very advanced stage of\nthe _Lancelot_ story; one at which the family of the hero, quite as\nmuch as the hero himself, is the subject of glorification.[157]\n\nThe Galahad _Queste_ is absolutely unthinkable without a previous\nknowledge of the _Lancelot_ romances; as a matter of fact, it stands\nin closer relation to these than it does to any earlier Grail quest.\nThe _Lancelot_ romances, on the contrary, would be quite complete and\nfar more coherent without the _Queste_. I have commented already on\nthe striking discrepancies between the sections, but I have not so far\ndwelt at any length on the extraordinary lack of Grail references in\nthe _Mort Artur_, the section immediately following the _Queste_. If\nwe set on one side the introductory passage, which I have no shadow of\ndoubt does not belong to the _Mort Artur_ at all, but is the concluding\npassage of the _Queste_, there is no evidence of the influence of the\nlatter throughout the whole of this last section of the cycle. Galahad\nis never mentioned; he was--and is not--as completely as if he had\nnever been. Lancelot never thinks of, never refers to, his valiant son;\nhis whole thought and care is for the queen, whom we were previously\ntold he had renounced. I do not think it possible for any one to read\nthe _Mort Artur_ and believe that the _Queste_ forms an integral part\nof the _Lancelot_ story. On the other hand, cut out the _Queste_,\nsuppress the few passages in the immediately preceding section of the\n_Lancelot_ story which relate to it, and you have a tale as complete\nand coherent as is possible for any legend which has been the fruit\nof long growth and evolution, and has not possessed from the outset a\nclear and definite purpose and outline.\n\nAdmit, as I think we must needs admit, that the _Lancelot_ and the\n_Grail_ stories form two independent streams of tradition; recognise,\nas we must recognise, their diverse character,--one strongly secular,\nthe other strongly ecclesiastical,--and I think we must own that if in\ntheir completed form they were to coalesce, that coalition could only\nbe carried out under the conditions suggested above, which conditions\nwe find fulfilled in the Galahad _Queste_. For me this romance is\nthe last word of the _Lancelot_ evolution, the final blending of two\nseparate and important streams of tradition, the _grant conte_ of\nLancelot and the _grant conte_ of Perceval and the Grail, the which is\n_chi\u00e9s et fin de tous les contes_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE DUTCH LANCELOT\n\n\nIn the previous chapters we have examined, so far as the material\nat our disposal permitted, the _Lancelot_ legend in its gradual\nevolution from a collection of scattered tales, or _lais_, to the\nvast body of cyclic romance which was its final form. In this task\nwe have restricted ourselves to those features which more intimately\nconcern the personal character and fortunes of our hero; a choice\nwhich leaves untouched a large section of his adventures, such as his\nfriendship with Galehault, and his winning of the _Dolorous Garde_.\nThese are features which, affecting no romance or chronicle outside the\n_Lancelot_ proper, cannot well be examined till more versions of this\nlatter are available. In this, the concluding section of these studies,\nI propose, leaving the question of the nature and origin of the legend,\nto discuss the relation subsisting between those different versions of\nthe text, on an examination of which I have based the three preceding\nchapters dealing with the prose _Lancelot_.\n\nThe texts in question are (1) the so-called Dutch _Lancelot_; (2) the\nprinted edition of 1533 (Lenoire, Paris); (3) Dr. Sommer's summary\nof the prose _Lancelot_, based upon the printed edition of 1513, and\ncompared by him with Malory's text; (4) Dr. Furnivall's edition of\nthe _Queste_; and (5) Malory's _Morte Arthur_.[158] This gives us\npractically four different texts for each section (Dr. Sommer having\nalso used the _Queste_), two of which, the Dutch _Lancelot_ and the\n1533 edition, appear to me to be of far greater importance than has\nhitherto been suspected.\n\nI propose to publish in an Appendix a detailed summary of the contents\nof the distinctively _Lancelot_ portion of the =D. L.=, but the\ncompilation covers such an extent of ground, and contains texts of such\nvalue to the student of Arthurian literature, that I think it will not\nbe superfluous to give here a brief outline of its general character.\n\nA noticeable peculiarity of the version is, that, contrary to all other\nknown versions of the _Lancelot-Galahad-Grail_ story, it is in verse\nand not in prose. The MS. containing it appears to be of the beginning\nof the fourteenth century;[159] but Dr. Jonckbloet gives reason to\nthink that the version contained in it was decidedly older than this\ndate, and there are certainly references to the _Lancelot_ story in\nmuch earlier Dutch MSS. Probably it is a compilation similar to that\nof Sir Thomas Malory, intended to combine the various romances of the\nArthurian cycle with which the compiler was familiar, or of which MSS.\nwere at his disposal. In the first instance it was a translation, and I\nthink we must hold a very faithful translation, from the French. Even\nas we have it we shall find that it agrees closely with parallel French\nversions. In its original form it consisted of four books, the first of\nwhich has unfortunately been lost.\n\nBook II. begins with what M. Paulin Paris called the _Agravain_ section\nof the prose _Lancelot_, _i.e._ the _Enfances_, _Galehault_, and\n_Charrette_ portions are not included.[160] The first 36,000 lines\nfollow the course of the _Lancelot_; at line 36,947 it takes up the\n_Perceval_ at the point of the arrival of the Grail messenger, and for\nabout two thousand lines goes on to give an account of the achieving\nof the adventures mentioned by her. In some points the compiler agrees\nclosely with Chr\u00e9tien and seems to have followed his version, in others\nhe departs entirely from any known version of the _Perceval_. Sometimes\nhis names agree rather with Wolfram than with Chr\u00e9tien; _e.g._ the\nlady is Orgeloise simply, not L'Orguelleuse de Logres; and Gawain's\nchallenger is Ginganbrisil, a form which Professor Yorke Powell pointed\nout some years ago as the probable source of Wolfram's Kingrimursel.\n\nL. 41,420, we have a visit of Gawain to the Grail castle, agreeing\nclosely with that found in the Montpelier _Perceval_, and also, Dr.\nJonckbloet informs us, with that contained in a German version of\nthe _Perceval_ preserved at Rome (cf. Jonckbloet, vol. i. p. xxiv.),\nadventures of Gariette and Griflette, and the fight between Gawain\nand Ginganbrisil, which ends in the victory of the former, and the\nking of Scavalon becoming Arthur's 'man.' This again is not recounted\nelsewhere.[161]\n\nLl. 42,540-47,262 contain the romance of _Morien_, son of Agloval, the\nhero of which bears a curious resemblance to Wolfram's Feirefis. In\nthis romance occurs the episode of Lancelot's conflict with a monster,\nwhich I have examined in chap. iii. This concludes Book II.\n\nBook III. opens with the _Queste_, the text of which I shall examine\nin detail further on; it extends to over 11,000 ll. The remainder of\nthe book is occupied by a group of important episodic romances, some of\nwhich are found nowhere else. They are as follows:\n\n 11,161. _La vengeance de Raguidel._[162]\n\n 14,300. An adventure of Lancelot, Bohort, and Dodinel, when the latter\n rescues a maiden tied up in a tree.\n\n 14,681. _Le Chevalier \u00e0 la Manche_ (van den riddere metter mouwen).\n\n 18,603. _Gauvain et Kei_ (Hoe Keye Waleweine verriet).\n\n 22,271. _Lancelot et le cerf au pied blanc_ (van der jonc frouwen\n metten hondekine).\n\n 23,122-26,980. _Torec._[163]\n\nBook IV. _Mort Artur_, 13,054 ll. The united three books thus\ncomprising a total of over 87,000 lines.\n\nIt will be seen from the above brief summary that the =D. L.= presents\nmany features of great interest for the student of the Arthurian\nstory, but so far, with the exception of the studies published by\nM. Gaston Paris, to which I have just referred, it does not appear\nto have attracted much attention from scholars. It is especially to\nbe regretted that Dr. Sommer did not use it for the purpose of his\n'Malory' collation; had he done so, he would certainly have come, on\nmany points, to a very different conclusion from that at which he\nultimately arrived.\n\nIn the following comparison I shall confine my remarks chiefly to\nsuch decided variants as cannot possibly be ascribed to the mistakes\nor emendations of copyists; nor shall I include those minor verbal\ndifferences which, however important for a critical edition of the\ntext, do not in themselves definitely prove a divergence of sources.\nThe point I desire to prove is that the versions =D. L.= and =1533=\nrepresent a text radically different from that consulted by Dr. Sommer;\nand that, in conjunction with Malory, they may be held to represent a\nfamily of MSS. hitherto unregarded, or unsuspected.\n\nAs readers of Malory are aware, he gives no account of the birth or\nearly adventures of Lancelot; the section dealing with that hero begins\nwith Book VI., and takes up his adventures at a point well advanced\nin what, following M. Paulin Paris, I have called the _Agravain_\nsection (l. 13,351 in =D. L.=). That Malory had before him any version\nof the earlier section of the _Lancelot_ I very much doubt. It must\nbe apparent to any careful reader that, in his view, the Lady of the\nLake is connected rather with Arthur than with Lancelot; whenever\nshe intervenes in the story it is to aid the former, rather than the\nlatter. I incline to the belief that Malory's MS. only began at an\nadvanced point of the story, and that he knew little, or nothing, of\nwhat had preceded it.\n\nAt the commencement of the Terriquen (=D. L.= gives the name as\nTarquijn) adventure, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =M.= all represent Lancelot\nand Lionel as sleeping under the shadow of a '_pomier_' instead of a\n_perron_ as in =S.=[164]\n\nWhen Hector comes to the fountain he finds =D. L.= LX. shields and\nhelmets, and XL. swords (the first letters have evidently been\ntransposed and should read XL.). =1533.= Forty-five helmets, forty-five\nswords, and 'more than' forty-five shields. =S.= Forty swords,\nforty-five shields, and five spears: helmets are not mentioned. Here\n=S.= appears to have a confused version of the two preceding accounts.\n\nIn the account of the queens who carry off Lancelot =D. L.= and =1533=\nagree with =S.= in naming the ladies (the queen in =D. L.= is of\nForeestan, _not_ Sorestan); otherwise the accounts seem to vary. =D.\nL.= and =1533= do not say, as does =S.=, that the first-named is on\nher way to Norgales through 'Sorelois,' but that her land 'borders\non' these kingdoms. It is not the _three_ but only the two last-named,\nMorgain le Fay and Sibile (Cybele) l'enchanteresse, who are learned in\nenchantments; and neither =D. L.= nor =1533= give any indication of\ntheir being the 'queen's ladies' as =S.= represents; they are simply\ntravelling with her.[165]\n\nThe lands of the heiress of Rochedon were not seized by the _King_ of\nSorestan, as =S.= states, but by the _queen_ who had been left her\nguardian (=D. L.= and =1533=). This is much more in accordance with the\nrest of the story. Otherwise these three versions agree against =M.=\n\nLater on both =D. L.= and =1533= agree in speaking of Galehodyn as the\n_neveu_, not the _filz_ of Gallehault, as in =S.= They are of course\nright.\n\nIn the account of the tournament there are a number of small variants.\nJudging from =S.=, who gives a very condensed summary, =D. L.= and\n=1533= are again more correct in details.\n\nOn p. 186 of =S.= the summary departs widely from =D. L.= and =1533=.\nThus, according to =S.=, Lancelot, seeking for Hector and Lionel, has\nmet with Bohort, Yvain, and four other knights at the 'Chastel du\nTrespas.' Lancelot proposes that each of the _six_ knights (_sic_)\n(there were of course seven) shall each ride forth separately and\nreturn to the castle 'a la feste de toussainz.' In =D. L.= and =1533=\nLancelot has started _accompanied_ by Bohort, Baudemagus, and Gaheret.\n_En route_ they meet Mordred, naked, and being thrashed with thorns by\n'Mathoeus die felle' (Marchant li felon), rescue him, and ride to\nChastel du Trespas, where Yvain is imprisoned, whom they also free. It\nis Yvain, not Lancelot, who suggests the separation and quest.\n\nAgain, in the fight between Lancelot and 'Terriquen,' both =D. L.= and\n=1533= agree against =S.= and =M.= in failing to mention Gaheret's\n(they have the correct spelling) horse, and saying that Lancelot rides\noff on his own. Whereas, later on, =S.= and =1533= agree in giving\n'three varlets and three sommiers' and =D. L.= and =M.= agree in a\n'foster' with four horses.\n\nIn the question of the final disposal of the castle =D. L.= and =1533=\nagain fall into line against =S.= The latter says that the knights\nexchange Terriquen's castle for horses, though not very good ones. I\nsuspect this of being a hasty summary which does not represent the\ntext; =D. L.= and =1533= are so much more detailed. =D. L.= says that\n'Die grave van den _Pale_ (later on _Parke_, which is I think the\ncorrect reading) is rejoiced at the event as his '_neve_' was one of\nthe prisoners. He gives all Arthur's knights very good horses. That\nhe receives the castle is not told, though he afterwards appears\nas the owner. =1533= says that 'Keux[166] du Parc' has a 'brother'\nprisoner: delighted at his safety he gives them all horses, very good\nto Arthur's knights, not so good to the others. Out of gratitude they\noffer him the castle. If =S.= correctly represents the text of 1513, it\nis clear, I think, that =1533= gives the original reading, which has\nbeen condensed, but rightly understood, by =D. L.=, and confused in =S.=\n\nIn the account of the adventures at the castle =D. L.=, agreeing in\nthe main with =S.= and =1533=, as against =M.=, yet in one point falls\ninto line with this latter against the other two. Both =S.= and =1533=\nagree in saying that Lancelot ties his horse to a _tree_, =M.= says 'to\na ringe on the walle'; in =D. L.= he ties his horse, when he comes to\nthe '_meester torre, vor die porte al te hant_,' which seems to imply\n=M.='s 'ringe.'[167]\n\nI now come to a most extraordinary oversight on the part of Dr. Sommer.\nOn p. 191 and again on p. 274 of his _Sources of Malory_ he commits\nhimself to the statement that =M.= is the only known source for certain\nadventures of Lancelot, his rescue of Kay, his riding off in Kay's\narmour, etc., and proceeds from this supposed peculiarity to postulate\na lost '_Suite de Lancelot_,' of which this is a precious fragment.\nNow, not only are these adventures recorded both in =D. L.= and =1533=,\nbut they are found in the summary given by M. Paulin Paris on p. 323 of\nvol. v. of the _Romans de la Table Ronde_.[168]\n\nThe adventure with Kay does not, in the original, occur at this point,\nbut follows after Lancelot's long imprisonment by Morgain; his freeing\nLionel from the dungeon of the King of Estrangeloet; winning the hill\nguarded by Bohort; and discovering the tomb of his grandfather;--a\nsequence of incident in which =D. L.= and =1533= agree perfectly.\n\nOf the following adventures contained in Book VI. =S.= consequently\ngives no summary. Throughout =M.= very closely agrees with =D. L.=\nand =1533=, but he omits to state, as do both these versions, that\nLancelot's arraying himself in Kay's armour was due to the dim light\nof early morning. He believed himself to be donning his own, and was\nunaware of the error till his host detected it, when he refused to\nchange, foreseeing the amusing complications which would result. This,\nhaving no bearing on the story, which is concerned with the _fact_, not\nwith the motive, was probably omitted by =M.= Another slight variation\nin =M.='s version is that he gives three knights and three pavilions,\nwhereas the other two agree in giving two knights and four pavilions.\nNor are the knights named as in =M.=, but this is most probably due to\nthe English writer, who hardly ever fails to name his characters.\n\nThe four knights of the Round Table are the same in all three cases,\nand =M.= and =D. L.= agree in the order, while =1533= makes Yvain the\nlast to joust. The two first are probably correct, as Gawain, being\nthe most noted of the four, would probably be the last to try his\nfate. Both =D. L.= and =1533= agree in a feature omitted by =M.=, that\nMordred was originally in the company of these four, but being severely\nwounded on a previous occasion cannot joust (=D. L.=); has been left at\na castle that morning (=1533=). =M.= also omits to say that Segramore\nreveals their names to Lancelot, who, overcome with grief at having\nso ill-treated his friends, throws away his shield, and rides off\nweeping. This causes the four knights to suspect his identity, and they\ntake the shield and carry it with them to court. I suspect that this\nwas in =M.='s original, as he makes Gawain say 'whan we come to the\ncourte than (s)hal we wete,' which is the reason they give in the other\nversions for taking the shield; accordingly, they hang it on a pillar\nin the middle of the hall until it is recognised.\n\nImmediately after this adventure =D. L.= and =1533= record one of which\n=M.= gives no hint, but which is important in view of a remark made by\nDr. Sommer on p. 204 of his study. Lancelot, having overthrown these\nfour knights, comes to two pavilions, in one of which is the lady who\ncured him from his illness at the Poisoned Spring;[169] as they talk a\nparty of knights and ladies ride up, with them a fair child three years\nold (=D. L.=); two years old (=1533=). This is Bohort's son, H\u00e9lie le\nBlank, whom Lancelot is delighted to see. Now, Dr. Sommer tells us\nthat, saving in the record of this infant's birth, the allusion to\nit in the _Queste_, and the mention of H\u00e9lie being at Arthur's court\nwhen Lancelot, Hector, and Perceval return from l'\u00cele de Joie, there\nis no mention of him in the prose _Lancelot_. It seems clear that a\nlarge section of the _Agravain_ must have been omitted in the versions\nconsulted by Dr. Sommer.\n\nOf the three subsequent adventures in Book VI., the final one, that\nof the knight who smites off his lady's head, and is compelled by\nLancelot to do penance for his crime by carrying the dead body from one\ncourt to another, is also in our two versions, but occurs at an earlier\npoint in the story. In both he is to go first to Arthur's court, then\nto that of Baudemagus, and lastly to the King of Norgales. If all spare\nhis life he may live. =M.= departs from this by only directing him in\nthe first instance to go to Arthur's court: it is Guinevere who sends\nhim on to the Pope. The variant is probably Malory's own.\n\nThe other two adventures are not in either =D. L.= or =1533=. The\nPerilous Chapel, I suspect, was taken over from a Perceval section.\nMeliot de Logres, and the fetching of a piece of cloth from the chapel\nof a 'Perilous Cemetery' are both in _Perceval li Gallois_ though not\nconnected with each other. It is noticeable that =M.= never refers\nto the 'Perilous Cemetery' of the _Lancelot_ proper, that of the\nupright swords, but drops out the reference to Galahad's achieving\nof it, which must certainly have been in his copy of the _Queste_. I\nthink there may have been two Perilous Cemeteries, one of the Borron\n_Lancelot-Perceval_, the other of the Map _Lancelot-Galahad_ cycles,\nand that this is the first and older.\n\nThe adventure of the Lady and the Hawk in chap. xvi. I have not been\nable to trace.\n\nThe events of =M.=, Book VII., are not recorded in either =D. L.= or\n=1533=, with this possible exception, that when the knights return to\ncourt after the adventures recorded above, and are called upon for an\naccount of their doings, Gawain relates how he fought with Gariette,\n_not knowing that he was his brother_; which looks as if the story (not\nrelated in detail) might represent a version of the similar encounter\nin Book VII. It seems clear that, full as is the account given in both\nthese versions, the compilers still knew a great deal more than they\nincluded.[170]\n\nBooks VIII., IX., and X. of =M.= follow the prose _Tristan_, and not\ntill Book XI. do we return to the _Lancelot_. This book opens with the\nadventures at Corbenic (=D. L.=, Cambenoyc, Cambenoyt, or Cabenoyt).\n=D. L.= fails to mention that the lady of the bath is naked, and\nconsistently calls the serpent of the tomb a serpent, never a dragon,\nin this differing from the other versions. =1533=, at this point,\nafter relating the achievement of their adventures, has a curious\nremark: '_Ainsi prend fin le premier volume des vertus et glorieulx\nfais et gestes du noble et puissant chevalier Lancelot du Lac et des\ncompaignons de la Table Ronde_,' and then continues, without any break\nof chapter, to relate the succeeding adventure with the Grail and\nKing Pelles' daughter. So far from this passage occurring at the end\nof vol. i., the _Agravain_ section does not begin till fol. xxxix. of\nthe second volume of this edition. It is possible that when a critical\nedition of the _Lancelot_ is prepared the above remark may be a guide\nto an earlier redaction, in which Lancelot was not the father of the\nGrail Winner. =D. L.= has nothing corresponding to this.\n\nIn the account given by =D. L.= of Bohort's visit to Corbenic, the\nfight with the knight who keeps the bridge for love of Elaine is\nomitted, but it was evidently in the source, as later on the knight\narrives at court as vanquished, and his name is then given as _Brimol\nvan Pleiche_, thus agreeing with =M.=, _Bromel la Pleche_, against the\n_Brunet du Plaissis_ or _Plessis_ of =1533= and =S.= =1533= records the\ncombat.\n\nOn page 195 of the _Studies_ we read that Dr. Sommer's source contained\nno passage to the effect of =M.=, p. 576, 30-32: 'Mervelle not said sir\nbors / for this half yere he (Lancelot) hath ben in pryson with Morgan\nle fay, kyng Arthurs syster /.' But =1533= gives it: 'il a este en la\nprison ou il y a une dame plus dung an entier,' which is nearer the\nreal duration of Lancelot's imprisonment. This seems to indicate that\n=M.= had a fairly full MS. source, from which he selected at pleasure.\n\nDr. Sommer gives no summary of Bohort's Grail adventures, so I cannot\ntell if there be any interesting variants between the French versions,\nbut both =1533= and =D. L.= contain two features, not reproduced in\n=M.=, which seem to indicate a knowledge of an older Grail tradition.\nIn both the old man tells Bohort that he has seen '_la lance\nVengeresse_' the '_wrake spere_,' he who sits in the Siege Perilous\nshall know the truth of adventure.'[171] (This, of course, might be\nPerceval equally as well as Galahad.) Galahad and Lancelot are not\nmentioned throughout.[172] The Maimed King and the Fisher King are one\nand the same person. All these points confirm my suspicion that the\nCorbenic adventure was originally taken over from an earlier, probably\na Gawain, _Queste_.\n\nIn the events relating Elayne's visit to the court and Lancelot's\nmadness, =1533= and =D. L.= in the main agree with =S.=, but with small\nvariants. In both Elayne leaves the court of her own free will, but\nArthur does not escort her; she speaks to Bohort before leaving. The\nknight encountered by Bohort is alone in =D. L.=, thus agreeing with\n=M.=; while in =1533= he does not meet him till after he has rejoined\nLionel and Hector. The knights who go in search of Lancelot are in =D.\nL.= thirty-two in number, and as later on we are told that twenty-five\nhave returned, this does not seem to be a mistake for twenty-three,\nas we might otherwise think. =1533= does not give the original number\nas thirty-two, but agrees with =D. L.= as to those who return, which\nconfirms this supposition.\n\nIn all that relates to Perceval and his first appearance at court, =D.\nL.= and =1533= agree on the whole with =S.= rather than with =M.=, but\nneither of them give any names of Perceval's brothers (save Agloval,\nwho fetches him from his home), nor say how many there were. Lamorak\nis never mentioned (I believe this character belongs to quite a late\nredaction). In this and in the reference to Gawain's having slain\nPerceval's father, I think we have the influence of the _Tristan_.\n\nIn the account of Perceval's being driven from court by the mockery of\nKay and Mordred, =D. L.= has a remark which again shows the influence\nof an earlier tradition: Perceval is described as '_Eene harde jonge\ncreature, ende die wel simpel sceen te dien_.' Nowhere else is there\nany sign of the simplicity which is a primitive trait of Perceval's\ncharacter. Later on, after the 'Patrides' adventure (which appears to\nbe differently related from =S.= as it is from =M.=, Patrides and the\nlady having fled together, been overtaken, and imprisoned), both =1533=\nand =D. L.= agree in the words spoken by Patrides (=D. L.=) or the king\n(=1533=), _i.e._ that Kay and Mordred have driven from court one who\nshould be a better knight _than all save Gawain_.\n\n    '_Ghi hebt entrouwen, dat secgic u,\n    Uter herbergen verdreven nu\n    Den besten ridder dier in was\n    Sonder Walewein sijt seker das._'--ll. 36247-50.\n\n(=1533= says 'When he is grown to manhood' he shall be as good, etc.)\nThis certainly points to an earlier stage of tradition, when Perceval\nand Gawain are the leading knights and Lancelot subordinate to both.\n\nIn view of what we now know, I think it is not an unreasonable\nhypothesis that these two versions, which agree so closely, represent\nan earlier pseudo-Borron _Lancelot-Perceval_ redaction, which has\nbeen worked over in the interest of the later pseudo-Map _Galahad_\nversion.[173]\n\nBook XII. =M.= gives the account of Lancelot's frenzy and subsequent\ncure. Here =D. L.= agrees with =M.= in saying that Lancelot strikes\nthe shield as if X. knights did it, whereas both =S.= and =1533= give\nXII. Later on =D. L.= is alone against the other three in saying that\nLancelot has only his ankles fettered, whereas the other three versions\ngive ankles and wrists. Nevertheless here I think =D. L.= is right,\nas when Lancelot rushes after the boar both =S.= and =1533= agree in\nsaying that he breaks the rings on his ankles, and make no mention\nof those on the wrist. Again =D. L.= makes no mention of hunters,\nthe horse Lancelot takes he finds tied at the castle gate. As later\non, when he comes up with the quarry no hunters are mentioned in any\nversion, I think it probable that they were not in the original, but\nintroduced later by some copyist to account for the boar.\n\nAt this point =D. L.= departs abruptly from the other versions, taking\nup the Perceval story. It is impossible to say whether this be due to\na _lacuna_ in the source, which the compiler filled up as he pleased,\nor whether this really represents an important (and apparently lost)\n_Lancelot_ redaction. In the remainder of the incidents represented by\nthis book =1533= agrees on the whole with =S.=, with this important\ndifference, that it makes it quite clear throughout that there is a\nperiod of some years involved. The reader quite understands all the\ndetails of Galahad's arrival at the abbey, his age, etc. Very probably\nthe compiler of =1513= (Dr. Sommer's source) condensed here, as\nelsewhere, thus causing the confusion noted on p. 205 of the _Studies_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE QUESTE VERSIONS\n\n\nWe now reach a very important point in our investigation. The\n_Lancelot_ section of Malory is not only so much condensed, but also so\nfragmentary in character, and, apparently, so capricious in choice of\nincident that a critical comparison between the version there offered\nand other forms of the _Lancelot_ story can never be productive of a\ncompletely satisfactory result. It is one of those cases in which we\nmust be content with probability, and renounce the hope of arriving at\ncertainty. We have evidence enough to enable us to form an hypothesis\nas to the _original_ character of the MS. used by Malory; of its actual\ncondition, whether complete or incomplete, and, if the former, of the\nreasons which determined the compiler in his choice of incident, we\ncannot yet speak positively. I doubt if we shall ever be able to do so.\n\nBut with the _Queste_ section it is different. As I remarked before,\nthis part of the _Lancelot_ cycle is far more homogeneous in structure\nthan the sections preceding or following it: it is a romance within a\nromance, complete and rounded off in itself. Malory appears to have\nfelt this; he condenses still, it is true, but it is condensation, not\nomission; he follows the sequence of incident accurately, begins with\nthe beginning, ends with the end, consequently we are in a far better\nposition for comparing his version with that of the other texts, and\ncan hope to arrive at a really satisfactory result.\n\nThe first noticeable variant is in the passage 'for of a more worthyer\nmans hande may he not receive the order of knyghthode,' words spoken by\nthe abbess to Lancelot. These are not in =Q.= but are in =D. L.=:\n\n    '_Ende ic soude gerne sien dathi\n    Van uwer hant ridder werde, wildi;\n    Bedie van beteren man, sonder waen,\n    En mocht i ridderscap niet ontfaen._'--Book III. 61-64.\n\nAlso in =1533=: 'car de plus preudhomme que de vous ne pourrait il\nrecevoir l'ordre de chevalerie sicomme il nous est advis,' vol. iii.\nfo. 67. Here then =M.=, =D. L.= and =1533= agree together against =Q.=\n=W.= has 'for we think that a better than he could not receive that\ndignity,' thus referring the phrase to Galahad--a probable misreading\nof the original French.\n\nIn the account of the arming of Galahad, omitted in =M.=, =Q.= and =D.\nL.= agree in saying that _Lancelot_ buckles on one spur, _Bohort_ the\nother, whereas =1533= gives _Lionel_ and _Bohort_. This latter is, I\nthink, the right version, otherwise Lionel, though present, would have\nno share in the ceremony. =W.= also omits Lionel, and makes Bohort only\nbestow a kiss on the youth, Lancelot buckling on the spur, in this case\none only.\n\nIn the adventure of the sword in the stone we again find =M.=, =D. L.=\nand =1533= in accord against =Q.= All three relate that Gawain attempts\nto draw the sword and fails. This must be correct, as =Q.=, though not\nsaying that he makes the attempt, represents Arthur as telling him to\n_laissies ester_ the moment he touches the hilt, words which both =D.\nL.= and =1533= place in Arthur's mouth after the attempt:\n\n                  '_Nu laet staen\n    Gi hebet wel min bevelen gedaen._'--ll. 231-2.\n\nThis latter phrase is evidently represented by =M.=: 'I thanke\nyow (s)aid the kynge to (s)yre Gawayne /' =W.= records Gawain's\n(Gwalchmei's) attempt, but not the king's speech.\n\nAccording to =1533= no other knight makes the attempt. =D. L.= records\nPerceval's failure, and says that after that none would essay the\nventure.\n\n    '_Soe datmen vord daer niemanne vant,\n    Die daer an wilde doen die hant._'--ll. 255-56.\n\nI suspect that =M.=, 'Thenne were there _moo_ that dur(s)te be (s)oo\nhardy to (s)ette theire handes thereto /,' should be corrected by the\nsubstitution or insertion of a negative (_no_ before _moo_ or _none_),\nit would read more coherently. =W.= relates no attempt after Perceval,\nbut does not say definitely that no one essays the feat.\n\nThe result here is clearly, =M.=, =D. L.=, =1533= against =Q.=, with\nspecial agreement of =M.= and =D. L.=, =1533= and =W.=[174]\n\nIn the case of Galahad's message to his relations at Corbenic, every\none of the versions gives a different rendering.\n\n=M.= My graunt sir Kynge Pelles / and my lord Petchere / (a manifest\nerror).\n\n=Q.= Mon oncle le roi Pelles / mon aioul le riche pescheoure.\n\n=D. L.= Min here den Coninc Pelles--enten Coninc Vischere min ouder\nvader.\n\n=1533.= Mon oncle le roy pescheur--et mon aieul le roi Pelles.\n\nThe greeting is omitted in =W.=\n\nIt is difficult to know what to make of such confusion, but of the four\nvariants I prefer the last as possessing a certain _raison d'\u00eatre_. The\nFisher King was certainly the uncle of the original Grail Winner, and\nKing Pelles is as certainly the grandfather of Galahad. It looks to me\nas if the compiler of this version had made an effort to combine the\nPerceval and Galahad stories, though his version as it stands is in\ncontradiction to his text.[175]\n\n=D. L.= text should be noted as compared with the statement of the\nearlier section, that the Maimed King and Fisher King are one, and\nthat the personage thus named is _not_ King Pelles but his father. The\nmanifest uncertainty of the Galahad _Queste_ as to the identity of this\npersonage, and his relationship to the Grail Winner, as compared with\nthe much clearer statements of the early Perceval story appear to me a\nproof of the lateness of the former. As to which of the four versions\ngiven represents the real view of the author of the _Queste_, I should\nnot like to hazard an opinion--probably copyists altered according to\ntheir own particular view of the matter!\n\nAfter the appearance of the Grail there is an interesting passage,\nomitted in =M.=, where Gawain remarks that each has been served with\nwhatever food or drink he desired, which had never happened before save\nin the court of the _roi mehaignet_ (=Q.=); _roi Perles_ (=1533=, which\ngenerally adopts this spelling), _coninc Vischer_ (=D. L.=). Here =Q.=\nstops, but =D. L.= and =1533= continue Gawain's speech, _nom-pourtant\nils ne peuvent onques veoir le sainct vaisseau ainsi comme nous\nl'avons veu, ainsi leur a este la semblance couverte_ (vol. iii. fo.\n69). _Maer si waren bedrogen in dien, Dat sijt niet oppenbare mochten\nsien_ (687-8). Nevertheless, since he has not seen it as clearly as he\nmight, he will go in quest till it be wholly revealed to him. I think\nthe above passage is the source of =M.= '/ one thynge begyled vs we\nmyght not (s)ee the holy Grayle / it was (s)oo precyou(s)ly couered\n/.' The compiler omits, as I said above, Gawain's reference to the\nprevious appearance, but adapts the latter part of his speech to the\ncircumstances he is narrating. =W.= gives the passage practically in\nits entirety, but so freely rendered that we cannot use it for textual\ncomparison. The king is called King Peleur.\n\nHere again I think we may postulate an agreement between =M.=, =D. L.=,\n=1533= and =W.= in a feature omitted by =Q.=[176]\n\n=D. L.= is alone against the other three in not giving the owner of the\ncastle 'Vagan' the same name as his castle, but simply says: 'Nu was\neen goet man te Vagan' (l. 1146), which I suspect is the right version.\n=W.=, on the contrary, does not name the castle, but says it belonged\nto _Bagan_, 'a good and religious man.'\n\nIn the account of the adventure with the shield, both =D. L.= and\n=1533= give Galahad's remarks to his companions more fully than do =Q.=\nor =M.=, though the general bearing of the passage is well represented\nin this latter. In both the first Galahad tells his companions that\nif they fail in the adventure then he will attempt it; =1533=, 'et se\nvous ne le pouez emporter ie l'emporteray, aussi n'ay ie point d'escu';\nthey then offer to leave him the adventure, but he tells them they must\nessay it first. =D. L.=:\n\n    '_Elst nu dat gi falgiert daer an,\n    Ic sal daventure proven dan--\n    In' brachte genen scilt met mi._'--ll. 1244-54.\n\nWith this =W.= agrees.\n\nHere, again, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =W.= give a much clearer text than\n=Q.=; and =M.=, though condensing, agrees closely in substance with the\ntwo first.[177]\n\nIn the adventure with Melians de Lile, =D. L.= and =1533= again all\nagree against =Q.= in stating that he is son to the King of Denmark\n(=W.= King of Mars), thus motiving Galahad's lecture on the duties of\nhis high station. It was certainly in =Q.='s original, as he says:\n'_Puis ke vous estes--de si haute lignie comme de roy_,' though Melians\nhas not told him his parentage.\n\n=M.=, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =W.= are here superior to =Q.=\n\nIn avenging Melians on the knight who has overthrown him, =M.= and =D.\nL.= agree in saying that Galahad smites off the whole left _arm_, as\nagainst the '_poing_ senestre' of =Q.= and =1533=. =W.= says he cuts\noff his _nose_!\n\nIn the symbolic interpretation of Melians' adventure, =1533= gives the\nfullest and clearest version. The right-hand road represents the Way\nof Our Lord, wherein His knights 'cheminent de iour et de nuyt la nuyt\nselon l'arme et le iour selon le corps,' =1533= (vol. iii. fo. 74),\nwhich is intelligible. =Q.= exactly reverses this: 'entrent de jours\nselon l'arme, et de nuis selon le corps.' =M.= gives, 'For the way on\nthe ry[gh]t hand betokeneth the hyghe way of our lord Jhe(s)u Cry(s)te\n/ and the way of a true good lyver /'; =W.=, 'On that road go the souls\nof the innocent,' thus evading the difficulty. =D. L.= is here very\nconfused, and does not seem to have understood the passage.\n\nIn the adventure of the Castle of Maidens, =M.=, =D. L.=, and =1533=\nagain agree in saying that Galahad meets seven maidens, against one\nin =Q.= =M.='s '/ Soo moche peple in the stretes that he myghte not\nnombre them /' is evidently a rendering of =1533=: 'tant de gens que il\nestoit impossible de les scavoir nombrer.' =D. L.= has exactly the same\nphrase, but gives '_joncfrouwen_' instead of '_gens_,' thus for once\nagreeing with =Q.=, which gives _puceles_, against the other two. =W.=\nhere gives 'maidens,' but in the first instance has 'a youth.'\n\nA little later, =1533= and =D. L.= throw light upon an apparent\ncontradiction between =M.= and =Q.=, noted by Dr. Sommer.[178] The old\nman of whom Galahad inquires the meaning of the adventure is, as Dr.\nSommer remarks, the same who has given him the keys; but =M.= says he\nasks a '_preest_.' Both =1533= and =D. L.= agree in saying that Galahad\nasks the old man who brought him the keys, when he comes to him the\nsecond time, if he be a priest, and is answered in the affirmative.\nAgain, the three agree in giving seven years as the time the customs\nhave been established, against the two in =Q.= =W.= here agrees in both\npoints with =1533= and =D. L.=\n\nIt is plain that we must reckon this entire adventure among the\nagreements of =M.=, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =W.=, though in one particular\n=D. L.= and =W.= agree with =Q.=\n\nIn the account of the fight of Gawayne, Gareth, and Uwayne, with the\nseven brethren, both =D. L.= and =1533= give Gari\u00ebt (Gaheriet) as the\nequivalent of Gareth.[179]\n\nWhen Lancelot is sleeping before the Grail chapel, =1533= clearly\nstates that the servant of the knight who has been healed takes\nLancelot's sword and helmet, as well as his horse, whereas =Q.= only\nmentions the horse; but says later that Lancelot finds himself 'tot\ndesgarnis de ses armes et de son cheval.' =D. L.= also only mentions\nthe horse at the moment, but a little later on states that Lancelot\nis 'sonder scilt ende helm ende part,' thus practically agreeing with\n=1533=. =M.= differs from both in saying that it is _sword_, helm, and\nhorse of which the squire deprives him. =W.= here agrees with =M.=\n\n=M.= and =D. L.= agree in omitting the parallel between Lancelot and\nthe bad servant, in the Parable of the Talents, which is given by\n=1533= and =W.= But it is a noticeable feature of both =D. L.= and\n=1533= that though they give as a rule a fuller account than =M.=,\nboth of them shorten very considerably the improving and 'sermonising'\nsections which are such a feature of =Q.= On the other hand, both give\nthe adventurous sections in a more accurate and detailed manner.\n\nPerceval's interview with the recluse, in Book XIV., is clearer in\n=D. L.= than in either of the French versions, and has some special\nfeatures of interest.[180] Thus in =Q.= Perceval asks, who was the\nknight who overthrew him. He does not know 'ne se ch'est chil qui vint\nen armes vermeilles a court' (_when_ he does not say); the recluse\nanswers, 'Yes,' and she will tell him the 'senefianche.' In =D. L.= the\npassage runs thus: Perceval asks,\n\n    '\"_Oft gi wet wie die riddere es\n    Dien ic soeke berecht mi des,\"\n    Si gaf hem antwerde daer of;\n    \"Hets die gene die quam int hof\n    In sinxen dage, ende die dan\n    Die rode wapine hadde an.\"\n    \"Nu seldi mi wel berichten des,\n    Wat betokenessen dat was?_\"'--ll. 3229-36.\n\nThis seems to me a preferable rendering.\n\n=W.= here hovers between the two versions. The aunt tells Perceval who\nGalahad is in answer to his question, as in =D. L.=, but volunteers the\nexplanation as in =1533=.\n\nLater on Perceval tells her:\n\n    '_Hoe hi gevonnen hadde sijn lant,\n    Ende sijn broder daer in es bleven\n    Met sinen liden, mit sinen neven.\n    \"Dat wet ic wel,\" seit si saen,\n    \"Die heilegeest deet mi verstaen,\n    Dies ic harde blide was.\"_'--ll. 3442-47.\n\nThere is no parallel to this in the other versions, but it agrees\nwith what we find in _Morien_; and I think it probable that the Dutch\ncompiler, who seems to have been very familiar with the _Perceval_\nstory, may have introduced it.[181]\n\nThe castle at which Perceval is to seek a kinsman is not named in =D.\nL.=, but =M.= Goothe, =W.= Goth, and =1533= Got, agree against =Q.=\nthere.\n\nIn Perceval's adventure with the Fiend Horse, the text of =1533= is\nagain preferable, being clear and detailed throughout, _e.g._ whereas\nwhen the lady asks Perceval what he does under the tree, =Q.= makes\nhim answer, 'Qu'il ne _sent_ ni bien ne mal mais s'il eust cheval il\nse leva d'illuec.' =1533= gives 'qu'il ne _faisoit_ ne bien ne mal'\nmais si j'avoye ung cheval ie m'en iroye d'icy.' =W.= here agrees with\n=1533=.\n\nAfter the fight with the dragon, =M.= tells us that Perceval 'ca(s)te\ndonne his (s)held / _whiche was broken_ /.' =Q.=, agreeing in the first\npart, omits this feature; but both =D. L.= and =1533= say the shield\nwas not broken, but _burnt_: 'Der verbernt was wech ende wede' (3886);\n'Qui estoit tout brul\u00e9' (III. fo. 83). As we have previously been told\nthat the dragon was breathing forth flame, this is manifestly correct.\n=W.=, describing the fight, says, 'his shield and breastplate were\nburnt all in front of him,' and that he 'threw the shield from him\nburning.' =M.=, who is condensing here, omits the fiery breath, hence,\nI suspect, the _broken_ instead of _burnt_ shield.\n\nI think we may take this again as agreement of =M.=, =D. L.=, =W.=, and\n=1533= against =Q.=\n\nThe 'drois enchanteres vns multeplieres de paroles' of the French\nversions, with which =M.= closely agrees, is in =D. L.=:\n\n    '_Hets een toverare sijt seker des\n    Die can dinen van vele spraken\n    Ende van enen worde hondert maken._'--ll. 4294-6.\n\nAn amplification probably due to the exigencies of rhyme;[182] though\nas =W.= gives, 'He was a necromancer, who of one word would make twelve\nwithout ever saying a word of truth,' the original source may have had\nsomething similar.\n\n=M.=, =D. L.=, and =W.= again agree against =Q.= and =1533= in giving\na shorter version of Perceval's prayer, and omitting all New Testament\nreferences.\n\nThe adventure of the dead hermit, in Book XV., is, again, better told\nin =D. L.= and =1533= than in =M.= or =Q.= Thus =Q.= omits to state\nthe nature of the supposed transgression, which is clearly set forth in\nthe other three:\n\n    '_Maer hine es niet, donket mi,\n    Na sire ordinen gebode,\n    Noch na onsen herre Gode;\n    Want hi niet heden den dach\n    In sulken abite sterven ne mach,\n    Hine hebbe bi enegen onmaten\n    Sine ordine nu gelaten._'--ll. 4780-87.\n\nThis is evidently the source of =M.='s 'this man that is dede oughte\nnot to be in suche clothynge as ye see hym in / for in that he brake\nthe othe of his ordre /.' =W.= gives the same reason at greater length.\n\nLater on =M.= seems to have had before him a reading nearer to =Q.=:\nin the morning, 'il trouverent sans faille le preudhomme _de vie_,'\nwhich =M.= understood as _alive_, since he says, 'he laye all that nygt\ntyl hit was daye in that fyre and was not dede /,' though immediately\nafterwards he says that the Hermit came and found him dead. =D. L.=\nand =1533= say, 'Ende alse dat vier utginc si vonden Den goeden man\ndoet tien stonden,' ll. 4915-16; 'ilz trouverent sans nulle faulte le\npreudhomme mort.' The miracle consisting in the fact that his garments\n(_e.g._ the linen shirt) were untouched by fire, so that he evidently\nhad died from the previous ill-usage, not from the burning--a result\nwhich he had predicted. =W.=, on the contrary, says that 'when the\nfire was extinguished the man was as lively as he was before. And then\nhe prayed Jesus Christ to take his soul to Him, and He received him,\nwithout injury to the shirt or himself.' The whole adventure should be\ncarefully compared, and the superiority of these three versions will\nbe clearly seen. The two first are, I think, the correct version of\nthe incident, but =W.=, though rendering freely, gives a fuller account\nthan is often the case.\n\nThe list of Celidoine's descendants agrees in =D. L.= and =1533=, while\n=M.=, though varying from the other three, leans rather to these two\nthan to =Q.=:\n\n   =D. L.=      =1533.=         =M.=                =Q.=\n\n  Marpus.      Narpus.        Nappus.              Warpus.\n\n  Nasciens.    Nasciens.      Nacyen.              Chrestiens.\n\n  Cham.        Ch'm le gros.  Hellyas le gro(s)e.  Alain li gros.\n\n  Helyas.      Helyas.        Ly(s)ays.            Elias.\n\n  Jonas.       Jonas.         Jonas.               Jonaaus.\n\n  Lancelot.    Lancelot.      Lancelot.            Lancelot.\n\n  Bans.        Ban.           Ban.                 Ban.\n\nI think here the second name is certainly Nasciens, and that the\nmysterious _Cham_ of =D. L.= and =1533= (a personage whom we do not\nknow) ought probably to be _Alain_. Such a mistake might easily be\nmade by a copyist, if the MS. before him were not clear and he was\nunfamiliar with Grail traditions. I think it very likely that =M.='s\nsource was much the same as that of =D. L.= and =1533=, and that\nhe dropped out _Cham_, but the comparison of the four versions is\ninteresting. The list is omitted in =W.=\n\nThe black and white knights are treated by =D. L.= as purely visionary\nand symbolic, and no names are given.\n\nThe incident of the black knight, who issues from the lake and kills\nLancelot's horse, differs in =1533= from the other four versions.\nInstead of striking the horse at once he rides past Lancelot without\ntouching him, then returns, striking the horse _en route_ and\ndisappearing in the lake. I suspect that this is the right version; the\nknight is evidently a water-demon, and having his dwelling in the lake\nshould return there.\n\nAt the commencement of Book XVI., when Gawain and Hector meet, they\nask if any tidings have been heard of the principal questers. Here\nthere are some interesting variants: =Q.= mentions Lancelot, Galahad,\nand Bohort, but says these _four_ are the best of the questers; =D.\nL.= only mentions these, but says rightly these _three_; =1533= first\nmentions Lancelot alone, then Galahad, Perceval, and Bohort, and\nreckoning all together, says these _four_, and with this =M.= and =W.=\nagree.\n\nThere are but few interesting variants in the account of Bohort's\nadventures; the symbolic interpretations are, as usual, much less\ninsisted upon, indeed =1533= gives no such explanation either of the\ndisinherited lady, or of the 'lily and dry wood' vision, though Bohort\nis assured of Lionel's safety. The fight between the two brothers is\nalso more briefly told: we do not hear that they lie long unconscious\nafter the flame descends, but Bohort is told at once to join Perceval.\nHere =W.= agrees with =D. L.= and =1533=.\n\n=D. L.= differs from all the other versions in naming the damsel who\nwarns Bohort of her mistress' suicidal intention. She is called Pallada.\n\nIn Book XVII., in all concerning the mysterious ship, the text of =D.\nL.= and =1533= is far superior to that of =Q.= The inscription in =D.\nL.= runs thus:\n\n    '_Hort man, die wils gaen hier in,\n    Besie di wel, ende oec merc\n    Dattu sijs geloves vol ende sterc.\n    Want ic els niet dan gelove ben\n    Hier bi hoede elkerlijc hem:\n    Falgiert hem eneger maniren\n    Van gelove, ic sal hem falgiren._'--ll. 7910-16.\n\n=1533= says the inscription is in 'langaige dit _Caldeu_,' and says\n'si tost q tu guerpiras ta creance ie te guerpiray en telle maniere\nque tu ne auras de moi ne conseil ne ayde,' and proceeds to explain\n(which no other text I have consulted does) that if he who enters fail\nin faith he will fall into the water. This should be compared with\nthe passage in Hucher,[183] where the inscription on the ship agrees\nclosely and is also said to be in Caldiu. The warning as to the nature\nof the penalty is omitted here, but the penalty is incurred exactly as\n=1533= foretells.\n\n=M.= evidently had the warning of =D. L.= and =1533= before him when\nhe wrote 'for and thou faile I shal not helpe the /.' =W.= gives the\nwarning in more general terms, due perhaps to the translator.\n\nPerceval's speech on entering the ship is again best given by =1533=.\nHere, he says, he will enter 'pour ce que se ie suis desloyal que ie\ny perisse comme desloyal, et se ie suis plain de foy et tel comme bon\nchevalier doit estre que ie soye sauv\u00e9,' _i.e._ he submits to the test\nin all humility. =Q.= says: 'Car iou sui plain de foi et teus comme\nchivalers doit estre,' thus omitting the qualifying phrases, and giving\nthe speech quite a different meaning. =W.= closely agrees with =Q.=\n=D. L.= also, though less abrupt, practically agrees with =Q.=; while\n=M.= must have had the version of =1533= before him: 'for yf I be a nys\ncreature or an untrue knyghte there shalle I perysshe'--a reading he\ncould not possibly have derived from either of the other two.\n\nIn the account of the scabbard of the sword we have a most interesting\nvariety of readings, but, comparing one with the other, it appears\ncertain that here again =1533= is in the right.\n\nOne side of the scabbard is said by =D. L.=, =1533= and =M.= to be red\nas blood, with an inscription in letters black as a coal; while =Q.=\nsays the scabbard is 'black as pitch'--an evident confusion with the\ninscription. =W.= says the sheath is 'rose-red,' with letters of gold\nand silver.\n\nThe name is given differently in each instance: =Q.=, memoire de\n_sens_; =D. L.=, Gedinkenesse van _sinne_; =M.=, meuer of _blood_;\n1533, memoire de _sang_. =D. L.= and =1533= go on to say that 'none\nshall look upon that part of the scabbard which is made of the Tree of\nLife but they shall be reminded of the blood of Abel.' =M.= omits the\nlatter part of this sentence, thus making great confusion.\n\nNow, comparing these versions together, the right reading becomes\nperfectly clear. The scabbard is red, for it was made (at least one\nhalf of it was) of the wood of the Tree of Life, which, as we are\ndistinctly told, turned red at the death of Abel; and the inscription\n'_memoire de sang_' was intended to keep this event in mind. The\nconfusion, in the case of =Q.= and =D. L.=, clearly arose from the\nMS. at the root of the first having had the reading san_s_ for san_c_\nor san_g_ (a reading often met with); a careless copyist, heedless of\nthe sense of his transcription, wrote _se_ns and this was correctly\ntranslated by the compiler of =D. L.= as _sinne_; a reading which,\nhowever unintelligible in itself, would probably not strike the\ncompiler (who was certainly an intelligent writer with a very good\nknowledge of French) as absolute nonsense, inasmuch as it was connected\nwith the 'calling to mind' of the death of Abel. =Q.=, who omits this\nqualifying passage, does make nonsense of it. In =M.='s case the\nmistake was in the first word, and probably arose from a confusion\nbetween _m_ and _uv_, which may very well be due to Caxton; otherwise\n=M.= appears to have had the same version as =1533=, which, alone, has\npreserved it free from error. =W.= omits the inscription altogether.\n\nThe 'erle Hernox' in =M.=, Ernous in =Q.=, is in =D. L.= and =1533=\nArnou_t_ and Arnou_l_. Ernoulf in =W.=\n\nBoth =D. L.= and =1533= state that the maiden who shall cure the\nlady by her blood must be not only a virgin and a king's daughter\nbut _Perceval's sister_. This is neither in =Q.= nor in =M.=, and\nmay perhaps indicate that, as I have suggested, these two versions\nbelonged to an original _Perceval-Lancelot_ redaction, from which they\nintroduced occasional additions to Perceval's share of the _Queste_,\nas in the previous allusion to his having recovered his kingdom in =D.\nL.=[184]\n\nIn the account of Lancelot's visit to Corbenic, after being struck down\nat the sight of the Grail, =Q.= says he is discovered seated (seant)\nbefore the door, while the other three all represent him as lying\n(lyinge--licgende--gisant), which is certainly more in harmony with the\ngeneral situation. =D. L.= says that when Lancelot recovers and knows\nhe has lain unconscious fourteen days he bethinks him:\n\n    '_Hoe hi hadde gedient den viant\n    .xiiij. jaer, ende pensede te hant,\n    Dat hem onse here daerti dede\n    Die macht verlisen in sine lede\n    .xiiij. dage._'--ll. 9919-23.\n\nWhereas =Q.= only says 'qu'il avoit servi l'anemi.' A meaningless\nphrase, as it stands. =M.= agrees with =D. L.= with the exception that\nhe says _twenty-four_ instead of _fourteen_, in which he is certainly\ncorrect, as Lancelot's _liaison_ with Guinevere had begun long before\nthe birth of Galahad. The number may have been altered by the compiler\nof =D. L.= for the exigencies of the rhyme, which would not admit\nthe original form. =1533= omits the passage altogether, condensing\nconsiderably at this point.[185] =W.= does not specify whether he were\nlying or seated, but agrees with =D. L.= in giving fourteen years,\nwhich rather looks as if that number may have been in the source of\nthis latter.\n\nIn the account of the questers at Castle Corbenic =D. L.= and =1533=\nalike clear up a passage which, as it stands, is obscure in =M.= and\nutterly unintelligible in =Q.= Nine stranger knights arrive at the\ncastle,[186] three being of Gaul, three of Ireland, and three of\nDenmark. When they separate the next day, =Q.= has this unintelligible\npassage--Galahad has asked the strangers' names--'et tant qu'il\ntrouuerent estrois de gariles, que claudins li fieus le roi claudas,\nen ert li uns et li autre de quel terre qu'il fuissent, erent asses\ngentile homme et de haut lignage.'[187] =M.= renders, without any\nmention of names being asked, 'But the thre knyghtes of Gaule, one of\nthem hyghte Claudyne, kynge Claudas sone / and the other two were grete\ngentylmen' (which should surely have given Dr. Sommer a clue to the\nright rendering of the passage).\n\n=D. L.= runs thus:\n\n    '_Ende alsi buten den castele quamen\n    Vragede elc oms sanders namen,\n    Soedat si worden geware das,\n    Dat van den drien van Gaule was\n    Claudijn Claudas sone die een,\n    Ende si vonden van den anderen tween\n    Dat si waren van groter machte\n    Ridders, ende van groten geslachte_'--ll. 10601-8.\n\n=1533= has, 'Si trouverent que des trois de Gaulle Claudius le filz\nau roy Claudas en estoit ung et les autres estoiet assez vaillans.'\nIt seems clear that =M.='s text is that of =D. L.= carelessly\nabridged.[188]\n\nBoth =D. L.= and =1533= conclude the _Queste_ section with the\npassage relating the death of the twenty-two (twenty-four) questers,\neighteen of whom fell by the hand of Gawain; the writing out of the\nknights' adventures, and the preservation of the record in the abbey\nof Salisbury where Map found them, this latter item being omitted by\n=1533=. This passage is, as a rule, now found at the beginning of the\n_Mort Artur_ section, but, I think, it is clear that its proper place\nis at the end of the _Queste_; as I have pointed out already, the light\nin which it represents Gawain is entirely in keeping with that romance,\nwhile it does not agree with either the _Mort Artur_ or the _Lancelot_,\nboth of which regard Arthur's gallant nephew with genuine respect.\nFurther, the drawing up of a record of adventures is better placed at\nthe end of the section dealing with the adventures to be recorded than\nat the beginning of another. =M.='s words, 'alle this was made in grete\nbookes / and put up in almeryes at Salysbury /' coupled with his total\nomission of any corresponding passage at the commencement of the next\nbook, seem to prove that in his source, too, it stood at the end of the\n_Queste_.[189]\n\nWhat now are the results we may deduce from this examination of four\nversions of the Galahad _Queste_? First, I think it is clear that the\nverse translation in =D. L.= and the prose =1533= both offer a text\nvery decidedly superior to that edited by Dr. Furnivall, and, if Dr.\nSommer's extracts are to be relied on, that represented by the majority\nof the printed editions of the _Lancelot_. Second, it is equally\nclear that the text used by Malory stood in close relation to these\ntwo versions. Many variants attributed by Dr. Sommer to the English\ncompiler, are, it is now certain, due to his source, in the treatment\nof which he shows little sign of intelligence or invention, but rather\na tendency to compression at all hazards, sometimes omitting the very\npart of a phrase which was required to make the whole intelligible. The\ngeneral tendency of our examination, therefore, goes to establish the\npractical agreement of =D. L.=, =1533= and =M.=, as against =Q.= and\n=S.= The version given by =W.= is so free a rendering, and omits so\nmany details, that it is scarcely possible to place it. It seems clear\nthat the _original_ source must have belonged to the same MS. family as\nthe former three, but whether the agreement was with =1533=, rather\nthan with =D. L.= and =M.=, or _vice versa_, it is impossible to say.\n\nBut how do these three stand as regards each other? On the whole\n=1533= appears to represent the better text, and it also appears to\nhave preserved signs of an earlier redaction, yet I do not think it\nis the direct source of the other two. We often find =D. L.= and =M.=\nagreeing in details of numbers and names, as against the other version;\ncertainly in the case of such a name as Brimol van Ple\u00eeche, Bromel la\nPleche, the agreement must be due to a French source common to both. I\nshould be inclined to postulate some such scheme as this.\n\n               =A.= (Original French Version).\n                |\n    +-----------+---------------+\n    |                           |\n  =1533.=                      =B.= French.\n                                |\n                               / \\\n                              /   \\\n                          =D. L.=    =M.=\n\nAs will be seen from the summary of =D. L.= appended to these studies,\nboth this version and =M.= show, in the _Lancelot_ section, a certain\n_plus_ of incident as against =1533=, though these incidents vary in\neach case. The relation cannot, therefore, be exactly determined, but I\nthink there can be no reasonable doubt that for the _Lancelot-Queste_\nsection of his compilation Malory used an _Agravain-Queste_ MS.\n\nThat he had _two_ MSS., one for the _Lancelot_, another for the\n_Queste_, as Dr. Sommer[190] suggests, is highly unlikely. It would be\ntoo curious a chance that he should in each case hit on a version so\nclosely corresponding to that of the two with which we have compared\nhis reading.\n\nThis appears to me practically to dispose of the argument, that Malory\nhad before him a number of episodic romances, an argument often brought\nforward;[191] the 'Turquine' episode in Book VI., the whole of Book\nVII., and the adventure with the damsel of Escalot being instances in\npoint. Turquine certainly came out of the _Lancelot_, as did the lady\nof Escalot; Book VII. may have been an episodic romance, as also the\nhandling of Urre of Hungary; though this latter, as we shall see, may\nequally well be an amplification of an adventure found in the prose\n_Lancelot_.[192]\n\nAgain, it very greatly limits the probability of Malory's having\nelsewhere worked with a free hand, inventing and rearranging, when we\nfind, as we have done, that numerous small details, hitherto ascribed\nto him, are faithful reproductions of his source. We are justified in\ncherishing very serious doubts as to the originality of any marked\ndeviation from the traditional version of an adventure which we may\nfind in his compilation.\n\nThese arguments, of course, apply most strongly to his version of\nthe _Charrette_ adventure, the problem of source of which, so far as\nMalory is concerned, is absolutely unaffected by the evidence we have\ncollected. This alone is certain, there is _no proof whatever_ that\nhe knew anything of the first part of the _Lancelot_ romance, his\ntreatment of the Lady of the Lake seems to show that he was absolutely\nignorant of it. He was _not_ in the habit of departing unnecessarily\nfrom his source, his variations as a rule are slight, and their motive\ncan generally be detected; when, therefore, we find him giving an\nentirely different account of the abduction of Guinevere from that\ngiven elsewhere, the probabilities are all in favour of his reproducing\na separate source, and all against his original invention. So far as\nthe matter stands in the light of the latest evidence, the question\nremains unsolved, with a decided balance in favour of the theory\nadvanced by M. Gaston Paris, and against that advocated by Professor\nFoerster.[193]\n\nLeaving the question of Malory, what may we hold to be the result of\nthis examination on the problem of the _Queste_ itself? Is the form\nin which we possess it practically the original form, or are we to\npostulate a series of successive redactions? I think that every one who\nhas carefully studied the variants given above must have been struck\nby the fact that in no case is the question one involving a variety of\nincident or even an alteration in sequence. It is the same story in\nevery case, told in the same order, in the same words, only certain\ncopies give a fuller and more coherent version than others. In fact,\nas I said above, the variations are the variations of the copyist,\nnot of the compiler. The one point in which we may postulate either\nomission or addition, _i.e._ the greater or less fulness, the presence\nor absence, of the 'improving' sections, is precisely a point in which\nwe might expect a copyist of a more or less didactic turn of mind to\nassert himself; it was so easy to expand or to contract such passages.\nAnd it is a curious feature that precisely in those versions in which\nthe _story_, as a whole, is the best told (=D. L.=, =1533=, and in a\nminor degree =M.=), we find the edifying passages in their shortest\nforms; while =Q.=, the text of which as compared with the others is\ndecidedly poor, gives them at the greatest length.\n\nOf any previous redaction of Galahad's adventures there is no trace;\nthere are no lengthy interpolations as in the _Conte del Graal_ MSS.;\nthere is no conflict, such as we find in other romances, between\nan earlier and later form; in sundry passages we have allusions to\nunrelated adventures: we are told that the heroes ride so many days,\nweeks, or years, and meet with many and strange adventures, but in no\ncopy do we find any hint of what these adventures may have been; yet\nhad there existed an earlier and fuller form, some fragments of it must\nsurely have been preserved.\n\nAnd this argument becomes more convincing the more closely we look into\nit. Above we have compared _four_ versions of the _Queste_ (_five_ if\nwe include =W.=), but one of these, Dr. Furnivall's edition, does not\nrepresent one MS. only, but is founded on a critical collation of two,\nand contains a specimen of the opening columns of twelve MSS. of the\n_Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale_; while Dr. Sommer states that he has examined\nfour other versions and found that, saving details of style, all agree\nin incident and sequence. We may therefore take it as certain that one\nof the four variants represents at least _five_ MSS., while scholars of\nstanding assure us of the practical identity of sixteen more!\n\nNow, side by side with these _Queste_ versions, we have compared four\nversions of the prose _Lancelot_, and of these four no two agree\nperfectly throughout, and all differ from the summary given by M.\nPaulin Paris.\n\n=D. L.= and =1533=, which on the whole correspond well with each\nother, yet have their distinctive differences, _i.e._ =D. L.= contains\nadventures not related by =1533=; =M.=, while on one side condensing\narbitrarily, on the other gives two adventures known to neither of the\nfirst; and =S.= omits an important section altogether. The summary in\n_Romans de la Table Ronde_, while agreeing on the whole with the two\nfirst, deviates from both in the later sections.[194]\n\nThe practical identity of _all_ the versions of a romance transmitted\nin so large a number of MSS. as the _Queste_ is, I believe, unique in\nthe Arthurian cycle. Such a phenomenon, for it is nothing less, can,\nI think, only be explained in one way: there was but one version of\nthe story, and that version took shape, _not_ at a period when _oral_\ntransmission was the rule, but at a later date, when the story could at\nonce find expression in literary form. I do not believe that any story,\nthe earlier stages of which were developed _orally_, is ever, when\ncommitted to writing, found so entirely free from variants.[195]\n\nCan we decide what special form of the Perceval _Queste_ the Galahad\nvariant was intended to supersede? I think not: it is noticeable that\nthe writer never gives any adventure which finds an exact parallel\nin the older romances, yet he not only knew the Perceval story, but\nknew it in various forms. The allusions in Book XIV., though slight,\nare remarkably instructive: he knew that Perceval was the son of a\nwidow, and that his mother died of grief at his departure (Chr\u00e9tien,\nWolfram, Didot _Perceval_); that in his wanderings in search of the\nGrail he came to the dwelling of a female recluse, who proved to be a\nnear relative (only related by Wolfram); that he has a sister (Didot\n_Perceval_, and _Perceval li Gallois_). Thus in these few allusions he\nis in touch with the whole cycle of Perceval romance! When, therefore,\nwe find that he never elsewhere assigns to Perceval any of the\nadventures traditionally connected with him, but gives him a new series\nwhich are duplicated elsewhere, one can only conclude that it is done\nof set purpose.\n\nOf the parallels given above, the existence of the sister appears\nto me to be the most important, judging from the prominence of the\nr\u00f4le here assigned to her. She only appears in the two forms of the\nPerceval _Queste_ which show traces of having formed part of a cycle;\nand inasmuch as _Perceval li Gallois_ represents the mother as living\nto see her son return, and regain his kingdom, the correspondence\nis closer with the Didot _Perceval_, but the question can hardly be\nsettled.\n\nAs a _Grail_ romance the _Queste_ is extremely poor. The utter\nconfusion of the writer as to the identity of the Fisher King and\nMaimed King; the inter-relation of Grail Winner, owner of Grail\nCastle, Fisher King and Maimed King; the neglect of the most obvious\nconditions of the quest, such as ignorance on the part of the\npredestined Grail Winner; his giving proof of identity by fulfilment\nof a test; the inaccessibility of the Grail castle to all but the\nelect knight--all show a most extraordinary carelessness on his part,\nwere he intending to write a Grail romance pure and simple. Ignorance\nwe cannot postulate. He knows too much about Perceval not to know\nmore about the Grail! It is evident throughout that the main anxiety\nof the author is to keep himself in touch with the _Lancelot_ rather\nthan with the _Grail_ tradition. He is extremely careful to introduce\nreferences to that portion of the _Lancelot_ story with which he is\nfamiliar; to explain that the adventures foreshadowed in _Grand S.\nGraal_ and _Lancelot_ have been really fulfilled, and so long as he can\ndemonstrate his hero to be a worthy upholder of the glories of the race\nof King Ban, he cares very little if he fails to fulfil the necessary\nconditions of the original Grail Winner. This latter may know from the\nfirst what the Grail is, where it is, his own predestined relation to\nit, his final winning it may be reduced to an absurdity by the presence\nof eleven or twelve others all equally worthy of beholding the sacred\ntalisman, but that matters nothing to the author; he has contrived to\nbring the Grail into more or less harmony with the _Lancelot_ legend;\nhe has crowned the most popular of Arthur's knights with reflected\nglory as father of the Grail Winner, he has put the last touch to the\nevolution of the _Lancelot_ legend, and in so doing he has achieved the\ntask which he set himself to perform. The _Queste_ is in all essential\nfeatures not a _Grail_ but a _Lancelot_ romance, and as such primarily\nit should be judged.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE MORT ARTUR\n\n\nThis, the final section of the _Lancelot_ cycle, offers less\nopportunity for criticism. The versions of =D. L.= and =1533=, though\nstill closely in accord with each other, differ much less from the\nsummary given by Dr. Sommer, and show less affinity with Malory.[196]\n\nSo far as Malory is concerned I differ from Dr. Sommer, who says that\n'he cannot have derived his account from the prose _Lancelot_.'[197]\nOn the contrary I think there is little doubt that Malory had the\nlatter portion of the _Lancelot_ before him, but dislocated it by the\nintroduction of the _Charrette_ and _Urre of Hungary_[198] episodes,\nwhich he most probably knew in an independent form; though of course,\nas I have suggested above, it is quite possible that some _Lancelot_\nMSS. may have included the latter. But considering the clear proof that\nthe English compiler was following an _Agravain_ MS. for the earlier\npart of his _Lancelot_ adventures, and that he includes the Astolat and\nPatryse stories, which are a part of the ordinary _Mort Artur_[199]\nsection, I see no reason to doubt that his _Lancelot_ MS. represented\n_all_ the latter part of the cycle (as we know he had, and followed, an\nalternative version of the =M. A.= proper). I have carefully compared\nboth =D. L.= and =1533= with the abstract given in the _Studies_,\nand give the following as the most important of the variants, but I\nshould like to make it clearly understood, both as regards this and the\nprevious sections, that the instances I quote by no means represent\n_all_ the points of contact and departure to be noted between the\ndifferent versions. I have many others in my notes, and a critical\nedition will certainly very much strengthen the case I have here stated\nin outline.\n\nAs we have before noted, =D. L.= and =1533= agree against =S.= in\nincorporating with the _Queste_ the passage generally given as the\nopening of =M. A.= Otherwise all three versions are in practical\nagreement as regards the events leading up to the tournament at\nWinchester. =D. L.= does not mention Hector when Lancelot inquires on\nwhich side his kinsmen are fighting, but only Bohort and Lionel. =1533=\nagrees here with =S.=\n\nAccording to =D. L.= and =1533= Gawain and Gaheriet take no part in the\nfighting at Arthur's desire: he fears they may fight with Lancelot, and\nill-will arise from it. =S.= does not mention this, so I cannot say if\nit be in the =1513= edition or not.\n\n=S.= says, 'The people think the two knights' (Lancelot and his\ncomrade) 'cannot be the sons of the lord of the castle of Escalot.'\nThis does not agree with the other versions: the people think they\n_are_ the lord's sons at first; then _Gawain_ says, one of them cannot\nbe. =D. L.=:\n\n    '_Ende man waende daer wel dat Lanceloet\n    Ware een vanden broderen van Scaerloet._'--ll. 851-2.\n\nand Gawain proceeds to say, 'This knight with the red sleeve is not he\nwhom I thought, no one ever saw such valour by one of the \"Kinder van\nScaerloet.\"' Arthur asks what knight he may be. =D. L.= makes Gawain\nsay simply he does not know, 'but he is certainly a good knight'; while\n=1533= goes on to add 'if Lancelot had not been left at Kamalot he\nwould have said that this was he.' This does not at all agree with =S.=\n\nBoth =1533= and =D. L.= agree against =S.= in saying Lancelot's wounds\nwill take six (not seven) weeks to heal.\n\nWhen Gawain and Gaheriet follow Lancelot, =S.= says they meet a\n_wounded_ knight; in =1533= the knight is dead. =D. L.= omits the\nincident.\n\nWhen Gawain returns to Arthur, =S.= represents the king as saying 'it\nwas not the first time he took trouble without results, nor will it be\nthe last.' =1533= and =D. L.= here add '_through that knight_,' which\nis evidently correct.\n\n=S.= simply says the second tourney is fixed at Tanebor, 'du lundi\ndapres en ung moys'; whereas the other versions carefully specify the\nwherabouts of this place, 'dat een casteel es, Staende in den inganc\nvan Nortgales.' =D. L.= spells it 'Caneborch.'\n\nAgain, according to =S.=, Lancelot, unable to go to the tourney,\nsends greeting to the queen and Gawain, 'from the knight who wore the\nred sleeve'; whereas =D. L.= and =1533= say 'the knight who won the\ntournament at Winchester' and make no mention of the sleeve, which,\nconsidering the relations between Lancelot and Guinevere, seems to me\nthe better version. Neither do these mention that Guinevere tries to\npersuade Bohort to return to Camelot.\n\nWhen Gawain comes to Escalot =S.= represents him as admiring the\nmaiden's beauty and envying the knight 'with the red sleeve.' =1533=\nsays, more correctly, 'the knight who wins her love'; he has not yet\nlearned to whom the sleeve belonged.\n\nIn the account of what happens after Gawain's return to court, and\nGuinevere's learning the truth, all the versions agree on the whole,\nand it is noticeable that =M.=, though making Bohort a more energetic\ndefender of his cousin's good faith, yet correctly reproduces all the\nmain features of incident and speech. I think any one comparing his\nversion closely with two or three others can hardly fail to come to the\nconclusion that it is the prose _Lancelot_ and no other account he is\nreproducing.\n\nAccording to =S.= Lancelot's kinsmen only remain for a week at court;\naccording to =1533= and =D. L.= it is 'that week and the next.'\n\nWhen they leave the court on the second occasion after the tournament\nof Tanebor, neither =D. L.= nor =1533= say (as =S.= does) that the\nqueen tries to persuade Bohort to remain, though they agree in making\nher regret his departure.\n\nAfter Lancelot's return to court when Bohort lectures Guinevere on the\nmischief done by women, with reference to David, Solomon, etc., =D. L.=\nomits the reference to Tristan, while =1533= amplifies it by saying 'it\nis not five years since Tristan died for love of Iseult.'\n\n=D. L.= omits all reference to Lancelot's being wounded in the wood,\ncondensing considerably at this point, and gives no account of the\narrival of the dead body of the maiden of Escalot.\n\nIn the account of how Lancelot learns of the queen's danger from Madoc\nde la porte, all three versions differ. According to =S.= he meets a\nknight from Kamalot who tells him of the queen's plight, and at once\nresolves to rescue her. _The next day_ he meets Hector and reveals his\nintentions; and a few days after both meet Bohort, who asks if they\nknow the news. =1533= says that as the first knight rides off, Hector\nappears from a cross-road; he is on his way to defend Guinevere.\n\nIn =D. L.= it is not said how Lancelot first learns the news, but he\nmeets Hector and Bohort together, and on their asking him if he has\nheard, replies in the affirmative.\n\nI suspect =M.= had a version akin to this last before him as he makes\n_Bohort_ Lancelot's informant.\n\nIn the account of the final detection of Lancelot and Guinevere, =S.=,\nas I have before pointed out, goes wrong, by substituting _Guerreshes_\nfor _Gari\u00ebt_. All the texts I have consulted agree in stating that it\nis this latter who sides with Gawain, and refuses to be a party to the\nbetrayal.[200]\n\n=D. L.= omits the fact that Arthur hears of Lancelot's victory at the\ntournament of Cahere; and also the remark of Bohort that only Morgain\nor Agravain can have betrayed him.\n\nIn the details of the detection all three versions agree closely.\n\nIn the account of Guinevere's trial =S.= again diverges from the\nothers. We read[201] 'Arthur decides to punish Guinevere with death.\nHe will have her tried at once. =P. L.= introduces here, and a little\nlater, a certain \"roy Yon\" who counsels moderation. The trial takes\nplace; Arthur, with Gaheriet, Mordred, and Agravain, doom the queen\nto the stake.' I do not know if this accurately represents the text\n=1513=, it certainly differs widely from the reading of =D. L.= and\n=1533=.\n\n=D. L.= does not mention Yon; =1533= simply introduces him as telling\nArthur that the trial cannot take place that evening, while both agree\nin saying that _Gawain_ (whom =S.= does not mention at all) warns the\nking not to proceed to extremities, threatening to give up all his\nlands if the queen be burnt. Mordred and Agravain doom the queen to\ndeath, Arthur _alone_ specifies the nature of that death.[202]\n\nIn the account of the fatal fight at the stake, =D. L.= represents\nLancelot as slaying both Gawain's brothers, while =1533= agrees with\n=S.= in saying that Bohort kills Guerresches and Lancelot Gaheriet.\n=M.=, it will be remembered, agrees in this with =D. L.= It may be\nnoted that all three, =1533=, =D. L.=, and =M.=, while making no remark\nabout Guerresches, especially lament Gaheriet: the two first say that\nLancelot knows Gawain will never forgive him for this, and =M.= speaks\nof him as 'the noble knyghte,' making the identity with Gareth quite\nclear.\n\nThe castle at which the queen and Lancelot stay _en route_ for Joyous\nGarde, called _Scalee_ by =S.=, _Scalle_ in =1533=, and _Calet_ in =D.\nL.= does not, I think, belong to Keux the seneschal, as =S.= supposes;\n=D. L.= does not mention him, and =1533= speaks of '_ung Keux_,' a\nfriend of Lancelot's, which cannot be _Kay_. Both here, and in the\n'_Keux_ du Parc' of the Turquine adventure, I suspect that we have not\na proper name at all, but a misreading of 'Queus'=_count_. In the\nlatter instance =D. L.= renders _Keux_ by _Grave_.\n\nOn p. 255, =S.= must surely have misread his source, as he says that\nLancelot sends messengers to _King Ban of Benoyc_, asking his aid. King\nBan was of course dead long before; =D. L.= and =1533= say to _the\nbarons_ of Benoyc, which must be the right reading.\n\nAgain, the summary of the battle, =S.=, p. 256, differs very materially\nfrom =D. L.= and =1533=. =S.= says Gawain fights like a madman and\nkills thirty of Lancelot's men with his own hand, wounding others,\nLionel among them. The next day there is another battle, in which\noccurs the incident of Arthur being unhorsed by Bohort, and remounted\nby Lancelot. Now in the other two versions Bohort and Gawain wound each\nother so desperately at the first onslaught that they are carried off\nthe field half dead, and it is _Hector_ who overthrows Arthur.\n\nLater on, after the return of Guinevere, when =S.= represents _Hector_\nas challenging Gawain, the other two versions give _Bohort_.\n\nAfter the kinsmen return to Benoyc we find =D. L.= in apparent\ncontradiction with the other versions. =S.= says that he makes Bohort\nking of Benoic and Lionel of Gannes, while he himself keeps the crown\nof Gaule, _because Arthur gave it to him_. =1533= seems to agree with\nthis latter phrase, as it says, 'et pour ce que le roy Artus me donna\nle royaulme de Gaule ie le tiendray.[203] =D. L.= on the contrary says:\n\n    '_Ende vanden conincrike, dat secgic u,\n    Van Gaule sone doe ic niet nu,\n    Ende ne houder gene tale af,\n    Om dat mi die coninc Artur gaf;\n    Want al haddi mi gegeven vor nu\n    Al die werelt, dat secgic u,\n    Ic gavese hem al weder te hant,\n    Bedie ic ne soude en geen lant\n    Nu ter tijt van hem willen houden._'--ll. 7407-15.\n\nNow in the earlier portion of =D. L.=, after the war with Claudas,\nwe are told that Lancelot has made Bohort king of Gannes, Hector of\nBenoyc, and Lionel of Gaul, an arrangement which exactly agrees with\nthat which =M.= takes from the English =M. A.= In this earlier passage\nLancelot gives as reason for not taking the crown that he prefers to\nremain a simple knight, and =1533= represents Bohort and Hector as\nfollowing his example and declining the offered kingdoms.\n\nI think the lesson of this discrepancy is that the _Lancelot_ and\nthe =M. A.= were fundamentally independent of each other, and each\ncontained an account of the crowning of the race of Ban. When brought\ninto close contact this caused a contradiction of statement which =D.\nL.= and =1533= evaded each in their own way. =S.= gives no clue to\nwhat happened on the earlier occasion.\n\nThe number of knights Arthur takes with him on his last expedition\nagrees in =D. L.= and =M.=, sixty thousand, against forty thousand in\nthe two French versions.[204]\n\nIn both =1533= and =D. L.=, Guinevere does not, as in =S.=, ask for\na _week's_ respite, but for a _day_, and Mordred himself suggests\nshe shall have the week. _Labor_, whom =S.= calls simply 'a faithful\nknight,' is in both these versions a near kinsman--_neve_, _cousin_. =D.\nL.= gives as a reason for Guinevere's rejection of Mordred's offer that\nshe suspects his true relation to Arthur. This is not in =1533=.\n\nIn the account of the fight between Lancelot and Gawain, all three\nversions apparently differ at the outset. Gawain will send the\nchallenge by a squire. =S.=, squire refuses, fearing Lancelot's wrath;\n=1533=, refuses, fearing to bring about Gawain's death; =D. L.=, goes\nat once.\n\nThe issue of the fight too is different in =D. L.= and =1533=. In\n=S.=, Gawain receives a mortal wound in the head and retreats. In\n=1533=, Lancelot appeals to the king: it is vesper-tide, and a fight\nfor treason must be concluded by nightfall. Arthur, seeing Gawain is\ngetting the worst of the battle, stops it at once. =D. L.= apparently\ncondenses a similar version, but makes Arthur appeal to Lancelot, who\nsays that he will be dishonoured if he leave his foe in possession\nof the field, but Arthur entreats him to do so for his sake, and\nLancelot retires. Both agree in saying that Gawain is over twenty years\nLancelot's senior, and is now eighty-two years old![205]\n\n=D. L.= represents the war with Rome as lasting twenty years, which\nwould make both Arthur and Gawain well over a hundred at the time of\ntheir death!\n\nAfter the news of Mordred's treachery =D. L.= makes no mention of\nGawain being carried in a litter on the return journey, or of his\ndesire for Lancelot's forgiveness; nor does he warn Arthur against\nfighting with Mordred. This is, I suspect, due to the compiler's desire\nto condense, as =1533= agrees in the main with =S.= The warning against\nMordred appears, however, to be fuller in the former, _e.g._ _Studies_,\np. 265. Gawain is represented as saying briefly, 'Avoid, if possible,\nfighting with Mordred, for it will cause your death,' which is in\n=1533=, 'Car ie vous dy vrayement que se vous mourez par une homme [=q]\nvive vous mourrez par lui et madame la royne,' p. 154, which certainly\nseems to point to an earlier redaction of the =M. A.=, where Guinevere\nwas a partner in Mordred's treason.[206]\n\nIn the description of Arthur's death there are some interesting\nvariants. Both =1533= and =D. L.= account for Lucan's death by the\nweight of Arthur's armour; it is that, and not the vehemence of the\nking's embrace, which really kills the sorely wounded knight.\n\nThey again differ in the details of the final scene. =S.= says 'a boat\nfull of ladies arrives; they land, go ashore, put Arthur, his horse,\nand armour into the boat, and row off.' =D. L.= says they call Arthur,\nwho rises, takes his horse and armour, and goes into the ship. =1533=\nsays the mistress of the party is Morgain; she calls Arthur, who\nrises at sight of her, she takes him by the hand (which would seem to\nimply her landing), and bids him bring horse and arms and enter the\nboat, which he does. Dr. Sommer evidently regards the entire account\nas absurd, but I not only accept it, but regard the versions of =D.\nL.= and =1533=, which would merit his strictures more fully than\nthat in which he finds such difficulty, as representing the earlier\nand more primitive form of the story. There is no doubt that Arthur\nwas conceived of as living and ruling in Avalon. This account of his\npractically voluntary departure for the mysterious island is much more\nin accord with that idea than the version which represents him in\nthe extremity of mortal weakness, and subsequently dead and buried.\nArthur's tomb is _not_ compatible with Arthur in Avalon, and I strongly\nsuspect that the earlier redaction of the =M. A.= made no mention of\nit; it is certainly omitted in the corresponding section of the Didot\n_Perceval_, which only says he departed to have his wounds healed in\nAvalon, and has not since been seen; but Bretons claim to have heard\nhis horn, and seen his armour, and believe he will return.\n\nThere is a curious discrepancy in the accounts of Lancelot's death,\nwhich seems to point to two distinct versions of that event. =S.= says\nhe died August 5th, but does not say how long he was ill. =D. L.= says\nhe fell ill on May 15th, and died after four days. =1533= says he\nfell ill May 15th, was ill four days, and died August 5th! Evidently\na combination by some unintelligent compiler of the two previous\naccounts, but it is unusual to find such an obvious _b\u00e9vue_ in so\notherwise admirable a version as that of =1533=.\n\nAll three agree that Lancelot is buried in Galehault's tomb, and that\nBohort becomes a hermit in his stead.\n\nFrom the above comparison it seems clear that though offering less\nstriking and interesting variants, the Dutch version and that of =1533=\nyet maintain, on the whole, their previous agreement as against =S.=;\nwhile =M.=, which here possesses an alternative source the English\n=M. A.=, yet occasionally betrays the same curious agreement with =D.\nL.= which we have noted before. The result appears to confirm the\nconclusion previously arrived at, that =D. L.= and =1533= represent a\ncommon French original, and that =M.='s source, whether complete or\nincomplete, was a MS. belonging to the same family.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\nWe have now reached the final stage of our _Lancelot_ studies, and\nit only remains for us to gather up the threads of the previous\ninvestigation, and to endeavour to formulate the results at which\nwe have arrived. We have seen that the _Lancelot_ legend was one of\nremarkably speedy growth. We find no mention of the hero's name before\nthe latter half of the twelfth century, yet within ten years of that\nfirst mention he is the most famous of Arthur's knights, and the lover\nof the queen.[207]\n\nWe have examined the legend (_a_) in the form of a loosely constructed\nbiographical romance, composed of episodes originally foreign to each\nother; (_b_) in detached episodic poems; (_c_) in its final form as\nthe most important member of a great prose cycle; and we have found\nthat in all this mass of literature the only really distinctive and\nindividual trait on which we could lay our finger was the story of the\nhero being stolen as a child and brought up by the mistress of a water\nkingdom.[208]\n\nInto the question of the character of the Lady of the Lake we have\nnot entered deeply; we have seen that she touches on the one side the\nmysterious queen of the Other World, on the other the scarcely less\nenigmatic Morgain le Fay, King Arthur's sister. The subject was too\nwide in extent to be adequately treated in this series; it demands\nseparate study, but the result, so far as the _Lancelot_ legend is\nconcerned, was to lead us to believe that the root of that legend was a\n_lai_, presumably Breton, dealing with the theft of a king's son by a\nwater fairy; a theme which afterwards underwent considerable expansion,\nin the course of which the characters of the hero and of his patroness\nalike became greatly modified from the original conception.\n\nThe final and best known form of the story was mainly influenced by\nthe introduction of a _motif_ foreign to the earlier and tentative\ndevelopment, _i.e._ that of Lancelot's love for the wife of his lord.\nThis _motif_, however, we saw reason to believe, did not really\nrepresent the earlier tradition of Guinevere's infidelity, but was\na practically new development introduced under the dual influences\nof a special social condition and the high popularity of the earlier\n_Tristan_ story. As to the reasons which determined the choice of\nLancelot as the queen's lover, we found ourselves unable to express any\ndecided opinion.[209]\n\nBut from its very earliest stages the _Lancelot_ story came into\ncontact with another and highly popular tale, the legend of _Perceval_.\nThe earlier and later biographical forms (_Lanzelet_ and the prose\n_Lancelot_) and the episodic romances (_Le cerf au pied blanc_ and\n_Morien_) show traces of contact, direct or indirect, with this story;\nwhile the precise statements of certain MSS.[210] make it quite clear\nthat even at an advanced stage of its evolution the _Lancelot_ legend\nformed part of a cycle of which the most important member was the story\nof _Perceval and the Grail_.\n\nThis continued contact with the _Perceval_ story, with the resulting\ndevelopments, appears to be the most important factor in the evolution\nof the _Lancelot_ legend, and one which has hitherto been overlooked.\n\nSo far as the evidence at our disposal permits us to trace it, the\ncourse of development seems to have been the following. Gradually\nthe legend of the _Grail_,[211] originally foreign to the _Perceval_\nstory, completely dominated that story and changed the character of\nthe hero, who became transformed into an ascetic celibate; while, on\nthe other hand, the growing popularity of the _Lancelot_ story had\nreacted prejudicially on the position alike of Perceval and the still\nearlier hero Gawain as knights of King Arthur's court. Eventually the\ntwo competing centres of romantic interest were _Lancelot_ and the\n_Grail_, and it became necessary to combine them in such a manner that\nthe latter, while still retaining its sacrosanct character, should yet\ncontribute to heighten the fame of the popular 'secular' hero.\n\nSuch a combination was possible, under certain conditions, and an\ningenious writer, perceiving this possibility, turned it to account by\ninventing the Galahad _Queste_, which, poor and inadequate as a _Grail_\nromance, yet as a contribution to the _Lancelot_ cycle had a very\ncertain and decided value. It put the final touch to the evolution of\nthe hero by enabling him to take part, under circumstances which should\nvicariously increase his fame, in the great adventure of the Arthurian\ncycle, the Grail Quest; it also restored superficially the unity of the\ncycle, which had been injured by the cleavage between the _Grail_ and\nthe other sections, caused by the growing popularity of Lancelot as\ncompared with Perceval.\n\nWhile Gawain and Perceval were the leading heroes of the Arthurian\ncycle, a Perceval _Queste_ was natural; but as soon as these two were\nsupplanted in the popular favour by Lancelot, the Perceval _Queste_,\nas an integral part of the cycle, became more and more inharmonious.\nA change in the interest of the _later_ Lancelot development\nwas inevitable, and that the change took place precisely at the\npsychological moment is, I think, proved by the practically universal\nwelcome accorded to the Galahad _Queste_. With unanimous consent the\nPerceval _Queste_ appears to have been discarded _as a part of the\ncycle_, although in its _independent_ form it still retained its\npopularity.\n\nNaturally all the branches of the cycle into which the new _Queste_\nhad been adopted were more or less affected by it; in some cases the\nreferences to the coming Grail Winner were more or less vague, and\nwould apply as well to the later as to the earlier hero; in other\ninstances they were amplified but not altered, thus introducing\nconfusion into the text (this is, I suspect, the case with the\n_Merlin Suite_). The romances that represented the _Early History_,\nas introduction to the _Queste_, were naturally the most affected,\nand at the present moment it is extremely difficult to decide whether\nthe _Grand S. Graal_ be a _direct_ amplification of the _Joseph of\nArimathea_, constructed with a view to the Galahad _Queste_, or\nwhether, in its existing form, it depends upon an intermediate version\nthe _donn\u00e9es_ of which would agree with the cyclic _Perceval_.\n\nIn any case the 'net' result was, I believe, the substitution of the\nname of the supposed author of the _Queste_, Walter Map, for that of\nthe traditional author of the earlier _Perceval-Grail_ story, Robert de\nBorron; and to ascribe to Map that cyclic redaction of the Arthurian\nromances which had previously been ascribed to de Borron.\n\nI think that much of the difficulty hitherto experienced in determining\nthe order and date of the various Grail romances has arisen from our\nvery natural tendency to regard these romances as a group apart, and\nto compare them exclusively with each other; whereas they should be\ntreated as members of the cycle, and compared with the other branches\nof the cycle. More especially is this the case with the Galahad\n_Queste_; treated as a _Grail_ romance proper, it is inexplicable, and\nappears to represent no possible step that can be postulated in the\n_natural_ evolution of the Grail legend. We could imagine the honour\ntransferred from father to son (as a matter of fact it is _Lohengrin_\nand not Galahad who should be the successor to Perceval); but this\nsudden break in the tradition by which the honour passes to the race\nof King Ban, no relationship between Perceval and Lancelot being\npreviously hinted at, is, considered in itself, most perplexing. On the\nother hand, treat the _Queste_ as an integral part of the _Lancelot_\ncycle, and it not only explains itself, but gives us valuable\nassistance in 'placing' the earlier versions.\n\nAt the same time it is obvious that the theory here advanced only\napplies to the _later_ stages of the Grail tradition; it does not touch\nthe problem of the origin of the Grail itself, or its first connection\nwith Perceval.\n\nIn the course of our investigation we found it necessary to devote\nespecial attention to the work of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes, endeavouring to\nascertain the exact position which, in the evolution of the Arthurian\nromantic cycle, should be ascribed to this famous poet. It became clear\nthat a very considerable portion of the matter with which he dealt\nbelonged by its nature to the domain of what we call folk-lore; and by\nreason of that nature could not have been _invented_ by the poet, but\nmust have ante-dated, in some instances by many centuries, any possible\n_literary_ rendering. Judged by the rules laid down by scientific\nauthorities on comparative religion, and story-transmission, Chr\u00e9tien\ncould not have been an _inventor_, but only a brilliantly successful\nre-teller of stories long known and popular. Instead of standing at the\n_source_ of Arthurian romantic tradition, he was swept into the current\nat a comparatively late period of its evolution. To solve the complex\nproblems of Arthurian romance we must go behind Chr\u00e9tien: it is the\nperiod preceding, not following, his work in which the solution of our\npuzzles must be sought.\n\nTo this Chr\u00e9tien himself bears witness. The position claimed for him\nby certain modern scholars is not that which he claimed for himself;\nhe never professed to be telling a story no one had ever heard before,\nthough he may have flattered himself, not without reason, that he\nwas telling it better than it had ever previously been told. He was\ndealing with heroes and adventures already well known to his public.\nThe manner in which he introduces, or refers to, incidental characters\nmakes it abundantly clear that he expected his readers to understand\nhis allusions. Especially is this noticeable in the case of Perceval,\nwho has been claimed, with more zeal than discretion, as one of his\nmost famous creations. He alludes to the hero in a manner that makes it\nquite evident that this story was well known, and the name familiar,\nto the public, some decades before Chr\u00e9tien himself undertook to tell\nit.\n\nAs practical results arising from these studies I would claim:\n\n _a_ That we, in future, place the evolution of the _Perceval_ story at\n a much earlier date than we have hitherto been willing to assign to it.\n\n _b_ That we admit the possibility of very important variations in the\n tale, some of them being anterior to Chr\u00e9tien's version.\n\n _c_ That we recognise that this story of Perceval was of capital\n importance in the general evolution of the Arthurian cycle.\n\n _d_ That in the mutual relations between the _Perceval-Grail_ and\n _Lancelot_ stories we have the key to the final shaping of the entire\n cycle.\n\nThese principles admitted, and I think the evidence adduced goes far\nto prove their soundness, it is obvious that in order to establish and\nappraise the above relations at their full value, we must have complete\nand critical editions of _all_ the principal texts. As matters stand\nat present, the only texts which can be said to have been in any sense\ncritically treated are the Didot _Perceval_, and the _Parzival_ of\nWolfram von Eschenbach for the older story, and the _Charrette_ for\nthe younger. We have been waiting for years for a critical edition of\nthe _Conte del Graal_, and when we get it will the editor have taken\ninto consideration the various additions to Chr\u00e9tien's text, and the\nversion of the Dutch compiler, or will it be Chr\u00e9tien's portion of\nthe poem alone? In that case it will not help us very far. We need\nsorely a critical edition of the curious _Perceval li Gallois_, with\nits blending of wild, folk-lore features with late proselytising and\nallegorising tendency, its baffling parallels to the German _Parzival_.\n\nAnd if we are at a loss for material to adequately criticise the\nearlier story, what of the later? Considering the highly mythic,\nprehistoric character of so much of the Arthurian tradition, the\ndisappearance of so many of the intermediate stages, and the consequent\ndifficulty in fixing the _earliest_ form of any characteristic feature,\nit would seem that our best plan would be to start from the _final_\nform assumed by the cycle and work gradually backward, since for a\ncertain period, at least, we might hope to find solid ground beneath\nour feet. But the most important text for this final form of the\nArthurian cycle, the prose _Lancelot_, remains unedited. And indeed it\nmight well seem to be a work beyond the powers of any one scholar; the\nnumber alike of MSS. and of printed editions is so large; they are so\nscattered, no important library but can show one or more _Lancelot_\ntexts, and we cannot afford to leave even _one_ of all this mass\nunexamined. The great discrepancy between the printed texts which the\nforegoing comparison has shown us; the pregnant hints as to earlier\nredactions, which the passages I have quoted from M. Paulin Paris\nand Professor Heinzel assure us may be found in the MSS., are all\nindications of the vast extent of the task which confronts us.\n\nYet this much is certain, until it is boldly grappled with, and\nscholars are in possession of a complete critical edition of the\n_Lancelot_ in which all the varying adventures shall be carefully\nchronicled, and all the traces of earlier redactions duly noted, any\nstudies such as these in the preceding pages, be they the work of\nscholars of the very first rank, will always be liable to the necessity\nof revision, or the risk of subversion, by the accidental discovery of\nsome hitherto unknown factor.[212]\n\nThis appears to me to be the great and pressing question which\nconfronts Arthurian scholars; we desire our work to have a permanent\nvalue, yet we are leaving undone that which, to all appearance, is the\nsurest means of securing such permanence.\n\nA work of such magnitude can, I think, only be grappled with by a\nbody of scholars, a chief editor, assisted by a group of sub-editors.\nThe great extent and diffusion of the material (the _Lancelot_ MSS.\nare, as I said before, practically scattered all over Europe), render\nit impossible for any one man to hope to complete the task within a\nreasonable term of years. I do not know what may be the principles\nregarding the choice of publications by the _Soci\u00e9ti\u00e9 des anciens\ntextes Fran\u00e7ais_, whether their aim be the introduction to the public\nof MSS. of which unique copies alone exist, rather than to publish\ncritical editions of more easily accessible texts; but if the latter\nshould lie within their province, I cannot imagine any publication that\nwould be more warmly welcomed by Arthurian scholars, or that would\nbe of greater interest and more enduring benefit to the students of\nmedi\u00e6val literature, than a full and complete edition of the prose\n_Lancelot_.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nTHE DUTCH LANCELOT[213]\n\n\n(Opens with short introduction alluding to Meleagant, thus\npre-supposing the _Charrette_ adventure.)\n\nLine 20. Eight days after Whitsuntide A., his knights, and twelve\ntributary kings are hunting in a forest. Guinevere and her maidens ride\nto see hunt escorted by Kay, Segramore, Dodinel, and Lancelot. Knight\nrides up and seizes queen's bridle. Her knights resent this. K., S.,\nand D. are overthrown. L. is about to joust when maiden rides up and\ndemands his aid, he is pledged to her. L. asks permission to fight\nfirst; overthrows and badly wounds knight, and follows maiden. Wounded\nknight is tended by queen's people.\n\nLine 245. Queen sends K. after L., whom he finds fighting with two\nknights; K. gives him his horse; returns to queen.\n\nLine 352. Queen is hungry. Dodinel and Segramore go to find food. Come\nto a pavilion with knight, he and S. fight, D. looks on. Maid on mule\nrides up, calls D. to go with her. Knight flies and S. is left alone.\n\nLine 444. SEGRAMORE meets one of A's horsemen pursued by two (=1533=,\n_three_) knights, rescues him and overthrows knights. Comes to a\npavilion; dwarf stands at door, strikes S.'s horse with stick. S.\nchastises him. Lady appears and reproaches S., he is struck with her\nbeauty. Enters pavilion and finds Calogrenant prisoner. He had come\nthere and blown horn at maid's request, two armed knights appeared\nand overthrew him. S. blows horn. Red Knight appears; they fight,\nwell-matched. A knight arrives, carries off maiden. R. K. begs truce\nthat he may pursue them. S. will do so too. Cal. is released (=1533=,\n_R. K. remains to guard C._). S. pursues ravisher, comes to hill and\nfair meadow, ten pavilions by a fountain. Knight with thirty companions\nappears and demands joust. S. overthrows him and asks news of maiden.\nKnight will tell him if S. will grant first request asked. Leads him\nto pavilion with maid and four knights. Maid will return with S.; has\nbeen brought against her will. A knight throws knife at S. who cleaves\nhis head with sword. Others attack S., who slays first, and others fly.\nRides off with maid to ten pavilions, ten knights ride out, S. must go\nwith them to their lord or joust; chooses latter. They ask his name, he\nis _Segramore die Wonderlike_. Another knight appears, S. must leave\nmaiden or joust. He is Brandalis, rejoiced to meet S., would entertain\nhim. S. says he must return to queen who waits by 'Elfin Spring.' B.\nwill escort maiden to her _ami_. S. rides off to house of Mathamas\n(his original destination), finds him and knights in hall, and demands\nprovisions for queen. M. and his men treacherously attack S., finally\noverpower and throw him into dungeon, where he is wellnigh starved, but\nM.'s daughter takes pity upon him, and brings him food.\n\nLine 1050. DODINEL and maid meet knight and lady richly dressed, with\ndwarf. D. greets dwarf, who makes no answer but tries to kiss maiden,\nwho throws him to the ground. Knight tries to kill maiden, but is\nunhorsed by D. and sent prisoner to queen. He is Maroc van den Ynsen\nRoken, 'twixt Ireland and Scotland. (=1533=, _Marruc le roux, no island\nnamed_.[214])\n\nLine 1267. LANCELOT meets a black rider unarmed with knight's head\non saddle-bow, asks L.'s name, bids him give him his armour, L. has\npledged himself so to do (reference to adv. in earlier part of prose\n=L.=). L. does so. Knight is 'Griffoen van den quaden passe.' He rides\nthus past the Elfin Spring. Queen sees him in L.'s armour with head at\nsaddle-bow and thinks L. is slain. Kay and other knights pursue him,\nand are overthrown, Kay taken prisoner. Queen and maidens remain at\nspring weeping.\n\nLine 1425. LANCELOT meets maiden, who hails him as best knight in the\nworld, thinks he is Gawain[215] (=1533=, _knows him for L._), whose\npresence in land of Strangore is much desired. Leaves him, and L. and\nattendant maiden come to house, where they are well received.\n\nLine 1480. DODINEL comes to a deep river crossed by narrow plank.\nMaiden crosses safely, plank will not bear weight of an armed man. D.\nfalls into water and is nearly drowned. When he reaches bank maid has\ndisappeared. Castle near at hand, knight comes out and challenges D.,\nwho is too exhausted to answer and is taken prisoner.\n\nLine 1565. QUEEN and maidens return to court in great grief, tell A.\nwhat has chanced. (=1533=, _Queen's account does not agree with facts\nof story. She says 'prisoner has gone after knight.' What prisoner?\nProbably Segramore's, but she says they have heard nothing of S._) Ten\nknights will go in quest of L. Gawain chooses his companions: Ywein,\nGarhies (_Gari\u00ebt_ general spelling), Gurrehes, Mordrec, Hestor van\nMaris, Acgloval ('twas he brought Perceval to court), etc. (_Neither_\n=D. L.= _nor_ =1533= _give ten names, the latter adds to those\nmentioned Les Hardi [le Laid Hardi?] and Brandalis_.) They take an\noath to seek a year and a day. They ride to the 'Swerte cruce' (here\nwe have story of Joseph of Arimathea and King Agestes [Agrestes] from\n_G. S. Graal_). Gawain harangues them, they will separate, and search\nforest for a week. Hear loud cries, maiden meets them, and says best\nknight on earth is being slain. Leads them to a valley where one knight\nfights against ten. Gawain and companions rescue him and put others to\nflight. Knight has two swords. Gawain asks reason. Knight explains.\nHe is Eliezer (=1533=, _Helye_), son of the rich Fisher who holds the\nGrail. One sword is that with which Joseph of Arimathea was wounded\n(here adventures of Joseph as in _G. S. Graal_); it is broken and can\nonly be mended by him who achieves adventures of the Grail. Ywein begs\nE. to accompany them in their search for Lancelot, he would doubtless\nfulfil the test. E. refuses, must return to his father. They separate,\nagreeing if they find L. to send him to E. (which they do not do).\n\nLine 2335. _Agloval_ rides five days without special adventure. Meets\nwounded knight who prays his aid. A. jousts with and overthrows\npursuer. Makes him ask pardon of first. Spends night in castle of\nsecond, who is Griffoen van den quaden passe. A. tells him name and\nquest. G. conceals share in adventure, tells A. he will find Kay at a\nhermitage. When A. has ridden away sets K. free, and tells him to go to\nhermitage, not saying whence he came. K. does this, meets A., hears of\nquest and follows him.\n\nLine 2565. GAWAIN rides three days without adventure. Comes to castle\nof Mathamas where Segramore is imprisoned. Being weary rides past\nwithout greeting. M. pursues him, they joust, M. is overthrown. S. is\nreleased and M. sent prisoner to court.\n\nLine 2685. HECTOR[216] seeks in forest up and down for eight days;\nninth, comes to where Dodinel fell into water, crosses safely and rides\nto castle. Knight attacks him and is overthrown, makes feint to yield\nand tries treacherously to stab H. H. smites off his head. Folk of\ncastle receive him gladly, tell him of D. who is freed. Maiden explains\nknight was her _ami_ and hated D. who had overthrown him at a tourney,\nshe had been forced to fetch him hither on pain of death. H. tells D.\nof quest; he will join. Leave castle and ride to trysting-place. All\nmeet, have heard nothing of L. Part in great grief, knowing it will be\nlong before they meet again.\n\nLine 2925. GAWAIN rides fifteen (=1533=, _twelve_) days without\nadventures. Comes to an abbey where he leaves his arms and takes\nothers. Spends Sunday there. On Monday rides forth, comes to a spring,\nunhelms to drink, maid rides up, knows him, and takes him to castle.\nLord of the castle arrives with thirty knights. A great tourney to be\nheld on the morrow two miles hence. Mabonars (=1533=, _Marbortas_), the\nking of Galehout's race (=1533=, _Galehout's cousin_), has summoned it\nat Castle 'van der Molen,' will give hawk to best knight and circlet to\nhis lady. Maiden prays G. to help her lover Taganas (=1533=, _Tanaguis\nle blanc_). On the morrow go to tourney. Argument between maiden and 'a\nking's niece' as to whose knight is the best. At first G. overthrows\nall adversaries. Then Red Knight appears, prolonged struggle, G. is\nunhorsed, R. K. rides away, G. follows, overtakes him at forester's\nhouse. It is Hector, who is much grieved at what he has done. G.\nforgives him, and they continue quest together. Third day (=1533=,\n_time not mentioned_), come to ruined chapel and churchyard wherein\nis marble tomb with inscription to effect that only the 'keytive'\nknight who has failed through 'luxurien' to achieve adventure of\nthe Grail can fulfil this. Enter churchyard, find burning tomb with\ntwelve others round it, upright sword on each. G. will test adventure,\nenters enclosure, is attacked by swords, beaten to the ground, when he\nrecovers consciousness is outside. Tries again, with even worse result.\nH. also tries, fails; letters appear on the door that none shall dare\nadventure till the 'son of the dolorous queen' come.[217] They leave\nchapel and ride till they come to two roads by a cross on which is\nwritten 'whoso takes left-hand road shall not escape without much\ndishonour; of right-hand nothing shall be said save that there is much\ndanger.' H. insists on going to left though G. would dissuade him. They\nseparate.\n\nLine 3535. GAWAIN comes to pavilion where six knights are at meat, he\ngreets them, they make no response. G. seats himself and begins to eat,\nthey order him to stop, and on his refusing attack him with swords and\naxes. G. slays one, cuts off arm of another, rest flee. Rides away,\ncomes to a valley where he sees castle surrounded by deep water, goes\ntowards it. Hears cries from a tower, enters and finds maiden in bath\nof boiling water (=1533=, _does not say water is boiling, and states\nthat she only expects aid from Lancelot_), prays him to lift her out;\nhe fails, she tells him he will not go hence without shame, and that\nonly 'the best knight in the world' can help her. G. goes to castle, is\nwell received. As they sit in the hall out of the chamber whence the\nking came (=1533=, _he sees 'entrer parmi une verriere'_) there comes a\ndove with censer in beak.[218] All are silent and kneel till dove has\npassed through hall and entered a chamber. Then tables are prepared and\nall sit down in silence. G. wonders much. Out of chamber where dove\nentered comes the fairest maiden G. has ever seen, holding above her\nhead a vessel in the shape of a cup. The vessel 'ne was van houte ne\nvan stene, ne van metale negene.' All kneel as she passes, save G.,\nand the tables are filled with the best food on earth. When she has\npassed all but G. have been provided with food; he doubts if he has\ndone amiss. After the meal all leave the hall, doors are closed, and G.\nis left alone. He lies down beneath a window. A man (dwarf?) appears\nand tells G. to go into a chamber where none shall see him, would\nstrike him, but G. takes staff out of his hand, warns him he shall not\ndepart without dishonour. (=1533=, _G. is only told 'fuyez vous en\nd'icy, vous n'y devez m'y estre, car en vous a trop villaine chose.'\nG. sees bed through open door, and enters chamber of own accord._) G.\ngoes into the chamber, sees a fair bed and sits down upon it. Hears a\nvoice warning him if he sit unarmed on 't bedde van aventuren' he will\nsurely die. Arms himself; a sword (=1533=, _lance_) with fiery blade\nenters room, smites him so sorely he cannot defend himself: becomes\nunconscious, on recovery feels that blade is being drawn out of his\nwound. Lies till daylight. (=1533=, _Quant il fut ennuyte si que l'en y\nveoit mauvaisement fors que de la lune qui luysoit a plus de quarante\nfenestres qui tout estoient ouvertes; lors regarde monseigneur G. en\nune chambre qui estoit pres de lui._) Sees a great serpent enter the\nhall, making fearful noise, out of its mouth come small serpents.\nLeopard attacks serpent, fierce battle. When serpent finds it cannot\nslay leopard returns to hall (chamber?), where the small serpents\nattack it. They slay each other. A great wind rises, which sweeps\nhall clean. G. hears women weeping, rises and sees twelve maidens\ncome weeping and kneel before door where dove went in. They depart,\nand an armed knight comes and bids G. go and rest on a bed in another\nchamber, he may no longer stay here. G. refuses, they fight fiercely\nall day, at last fall exhausted. It begins to thunder, the whole palace\ntrembles, G. is deafened by the sound, knows not if it be day or night\n(=1533=, _if he be living or dead_). A great wind rises (=1533=, _soft\nand sweet_), and he hears voices, two hundred at least, singing so\nsweetly, nothing on earth can be like to it. He cannot understand all\nthe words, only 'Glorie ende lof moete hebben ewelike die coninc van\nhemelrike.' The palace is filled with a sweet smoke. Opens his eyes\nand sees the maiden of evening before with vessel, preceded by two\ncensers (=1533=, _and two cierges_), places vessel on silver table, ten\ncensers give sweet smell around it. Voices sing 'Ere, bliscap, ende lof\nmoete hebben ewelike, Die soete here van hemelrike.' Maiden carries\nvessel back to chamber. Hall grows dark and windows fly open (=1533=,\n_and close again_). G. can see nothing, but feels he is healed of his\nwounds, rises and looks for knight with whom he had fought, but can\nfind nothing. Hears people enter and feels himself taken by hands and\nfeet, bound, carried out of hall, and laid on a cart. Daylight comes,\nhe is still in the cart, to which a wretched horse is harnessed; feels\nhimself shamed. A maiden (=1533=, _une vieille_) comes and drives the\nhorse out, as they pass the gateway the people mock at and pelt G.\nWhen bridge is passed maiden looses his bonds and tells him to leave\nthe cart, he has been there long enough. G. asks name of castle, it is\nCambonoyc.[219] He curses the day he was born and made knight to be\nthus shamed. Rides all day, at evening comes to hermitage, where he\nis kindly received. Hermit asks his name, and is rejoiced at hearing\nit. Where has he spent the night? G. will not say at first. (=1533=,\n_G. shows shame at being praised. H. comforts him; no man but knows\nmisfortune. G. says no man has had such ill-luck as he for fifteen\ndays. H. asks how, and G. tells all._) When he does tell, H. keeps\nsilence for a long time, then tells him he has seen the Holy Grail, his\nown sin prevented him from being fed by it. (=1533=, _quant vous ne luy\nfeistes honeur bien vous deistes mesadvenir_.)[220] G. asks meaning of\nserpent; it is A. his uncle. He shall leave his kingdom in charge of\nhis kinsmen and go to fight a knight whom he cannot overcome; on his\nreturn his own kinsmen shall fight against, and slay him. It shall come\nabout through G. himself. He must swear not to reveal what H. has told\nhim to any one. G. spends night there, and in morning rides forth to\nseek Hector.\n\nLine 4260. HECTOR rides till eventide, meets a dwarf, who warns him,\nbut will give no explanation. H. rides on and comes to a stone on which\nit is written, that no one enters this land save to his shame. Then\nmeets two maidens who lament over him. Comes to a castle surrounded by\nwater, over which is a bridge. A maiden sitting under a tree greets him\nkindly, and tells him there is a knight at the bridge who jousts with\nall comers, and throws the vanquished into the water. H. overthrows\nknight and crosses bridge. The gates are closed, none may enter save by\nswearing to put an end to the evil customs of the castle. H. swears and\nenters. Asks what are the customs. There is an evil knight there who\nfights with all who come; if victorious he drives them naked through\nthe streets; also he has dishonoured more than one hundred (=1533=,\n_forty_) noble maidens. H. bids them lead him to knight. They take him\nto a fair garden, well planted with trees, in the midst of which is an\nopen space. They show him an ivory horn hanging on a tree, if he sound\nit the knight will come.[221] He does so and a 'hunch-backed and ugly'\n(=1533=, _grant_) knight, on a white horse, appears unarmed, and asks\nH. his name. If he will swear to renounce evil customs H. will tell\nhim, not otherwise; knight prefers to fight. Folk tell H. it was a ruse\ncoming to him unarmed, had he made terms and disarmed, he would have\nbeen overpowered at once. Knight returns in red armour. After fierce\nfight H. slays him and learns he must now deliver lady of the castle,\nwho is in a cave guarded by two leopards (=1533=, _lyons_). This he\ndoes; slays leopards and releases lady, who is joyfully received by\nthe people. She is Argale van Grakenlant (=1533=, _Grindelain_), and\nLancelot's cousin. The knight was Margarij (=1533=, _Maugart le Roux_);\nshe is concerned to hear of L.'s disappearance.\n\nLine 4812. YWEIN rides three (=1533=, _four_) days without adventure.\nFourth meets a maiden who laughs as she sees him. Y. asks reason, she\nwill tell him if he will promise her a gift that will cost him little.\nY. promises. A knight has threatened to take her horse, because his\n_amie_ reproached him with having done little for her honour. Will Y.\ngive her the knight's horse? She knows Y. and his fame, and therefore\nlaughed for joy on meeting him. He consents and they ride together.\nKnight comes out from his pavilion and demands Y.'s horse. Y. will\nfight for it. They do so and the knight is slain (=1533=, _apparently\nnot, the lady only thinks he is dead_), and his horse is given to\nmaiden, who goes her way rejoicing. Y. rides till evening, when he\nmeets a maiden lamenting loudly; a knight has taken from her the hawk\nher _ami_ gave her, _he_ will think she gave it willingly and slay her\nfor jealousy. Y. bids her lead him to tent of knight who stole hawk;\nshe does so, and Y. bids her go in and take it. Knight objects, they\nfight. Both are wounded, knight mortally; prays for hermit that he may\nreceive last sacraments. Y. sends maiden, and himself finally returns\nwith hermit, who tends him for fifteen days till wounds are healed.\n\nLine 5070. MORDRET, Gawain's youngest brother, rode all day with\nnothing to eat, weary, because he was young, only twenty; fair-haired\nand good to look upon, but evil at heart. Description of brothers:\nGawain fairest, courteous to all, especially the poor[222] (=1533=,\n_fist voluntiers bien aux meseaulx plus que a autres gens_.) His\nstrength doubles, at certain times, as he fights (not specified,\n=1533= says, _toutes heures du iour_), so that none can overcome him,\nhe will either conquer or be slain. A good knight in all things, and\nfaithful to his lord. Courteous to all women, and not given to boast\nof his deeds. Agravain, handsome and valiant, but of bitter tongue;\n'Lancelot slew him as ye shall hear' (_omitted in_ =1533=), Garhi\u00ebs\n(later on Gari\u00ebtte) (_Gaheriet_, =1533=) more courteous than any of the\nothers 'save Gawain' (_omitted in_ =1533=). His right arm was longer\nthan his left, so that he did great deeds of knighthood (=1533= adds,\n_most gentle of all, and most relentless when wrathful_). Gurrehies\n(=1533=, _Gueresches_) very valiant, fond of deeds of knighthood, never\ntook any rest. Handsome in face and more fastidious in dress than the\nothers. Much loved of ladies. Gawain's favourite, and youngest save\nMordret.[223] Mordret was valiant, but an evil knight, save for first\ntwo years of his knighthood. 'He did more harm in his life than all\nhis brethren did good, for fifteen thousand[224] valiant knights were\nslain in one day because of him, and he himself died there too' (=1533=\n_omits this_).\n\nLine 5250. MORDRET spends night at castle of a lady (=1533=, _widow_),\nwho treats him well. Next morning he rides on his way, comes to two\npavilions; at door of one is a horse ready saddled, and armour. Dwarf\ncomes out with bow and arrow, and shoots M.'s horse dead. M. would\nchastise dwarf, but owner arrives and challenges M. They fight, and\nknight is slain. M. takes horse and goes on his way. Comes to a tent\nwhere is a fair maiden; she will lodge M. if her lover does not object;\nif he does, M. must go. They fall in love; M. prays her favours and\nis not refused. Lover arrives; M. may stay when he tells his name;\nwould do anything for Gari\u00ebtte's brother. Two knights come, with\nsquire bearing venison. M. is well treated. He prays maiden to come\nto him when her lover is asleep. After some demur, she does so. Lover\nawakes, finds M. and maiden together, reproaches him; he cannot be G.'s\nbrother, or he would not have acted thus. They fight; M. being the\nyounger and stronger, makes him swear to pardon lady. Next morning he\nrides away.\n\nLine 5530. AGRAVAIN comes to a fair tent, where there is a dead knight\non a bier, a maiden and wounded knight beside him. A. asks explanation.\nDead knight was brother to the other. On their way to A.'s court they\ncame to the 'Keytiven berch.' A knight, Dryas (=1533=, _Druas_),\nattacked them, they were unarmed; one was slain, the other fled. Dryas\nsent the body after him. He slays all who come to this place. A. says\nhe will avenge him; is warned if he slay D. not to sound ivory horn\ndwarf will proffer, or D.'s brother, twice as fierce as he, will\ncome from the other side of the mountain. A. goes forth, comes to a\nfountain; is challenged by D., slays him and gives head to knight,\nwho is much rejoiced, even more when he knows A.'s name. A. returns;\nfinds dwarf and maiden lamenting over D.'s body. Dwarf offers A. horn,\nwhich he blows loudly, all know D. is slain. His brother Sornahan\n(=1533=, _Sornehault_) arms and comes to avenge him. They fight, both\nare thrown. A. is unconscious. S. is about to slay him, when maid rides\nup, demands a boon, which S. grants: it is A.'s life. S. will keep him\nin prison though maid warns him Gawain is in the land, and will avenge\nhis brother. S. has a wall built all round the mount, with notice that\nwhoever would enter must first fight with him.\n\nLine 6095. GURR\u00cbES (=1533=, _Gueresches_) rides through thicket forty\nmiles long, ten (=1533=, _forty_) wide; finds knights ill-treating old\nknight, rescues him. His son had accidentally slain his cousin, his\nsister's son (=1533=, _a maiden_); in revenge the brothers have slain\nson, and would have slain him, but for G. G. goes with him to castle,\nmost kindly received. Offers his love to daughter; she asks who he is,\nwhen she hears, says he is too rich and well-born for her. Asks him\nname of knight who bears certain arms; it is Lancelot. G. would fain\nknow what has become of him. Peasant comes lamenting, he had fled from\narmed knight and wolves had slain his ass in forest, has lost means\nof living. G. was the knight; prays his host to give peasant horse\nfor his sake, which he does. During night nephews attack castle, are\nrepulsed; pray for peace. G. advises host to make peace as they are\nsuch near kinsmen; he consents. G. leaves castle, comes to fountain in\nplain, where three ladies are seated, one sixty years old, one forty,\none less than twenty; youngest very poorly dressed. G. asks cause of\nher grief; her husband is very jealous because she had praised Lancelot\nunduly, has taken away her rich clothes, and forced her to eat with the\nservants. Oldest lady is in woe because she has been forced to promise\nher daughter to knight of low birth, who has murdered one wife already.\nAsks G.'s advice. He tells her to keep her word, and he will free the\ndaughter. They go to castle together; knight arrives and claims maiden,\nmother gives her up. As they ride off G. says _he_ loves maiden, will\nfight for her, follows and slays knight. Beseeches maiden's love, but\nshe refuses; she loves another, and G. restores her to her mother\nin safety. Will not stay, but will at once seek castle of lady with\njealous husband. She receives him well; her husband is away, but\nreturns shortly, and though angry, allows G. to stay. Meanwhile another\nknight arrives, Segramore. Husband, very wroth, plots to slay them;\nbut page overhears and tells lady, who warns them. They prepare, and\nwhen host would pick quarrel with S., slay him to joy of lady and her\nrelatives. Next morning G. and S. depart, come to thirteen pavilions,\nmust joust ere they go farther. Each unhorses his adversary; may depart\nwith honour. Owner of pavilions is Count Wigans (=1533=, _Gimas_),\nhearing Gawain was in the land, has come out to seek jousts. Ride on,\nmeet sister of Agloval, seeking her brother; S. will escort her. G.\ngoes on alone.\n\nLine 7840. GURR\u00cbES comes to four tents, in first a meal spread;\nsecond, four coffers, and a dwarf sleeping; third, two maidens; fourth,\nmaid and knight. G. eats, and goes to sleep in last tent by maiden.\nKnight awakes, drags G. out of bed; G. seizes sword and smites off\nknight's head (=1533=, _cleaves him in two_); lady much grieved, it\nwas her husband. G., smitten with her, forces her to ride with him.\nCome to a forest; knight challenges G. and is slain. Next day four\nbrothers of lady overtake them, but are overthrown by G. Come to Abbey\nof White Nuns. Lady takes veil, she is of high birth; Lancelot, Lionel,\nand Bohort are her kinsmen. G. rides on, comes to Sornahan's Mount,\nis overthrown, and shares fate of Agravain. S.'s niece treats the\nprisoners well.\n\nLine 8540. GARI\u00cbTTE meets a maiden seeking Lancelot, and they ride\ntogether. Her brother-in-law has seized her lands, and she seeks one of\nA.'s knights to fight with him. G. promises to do so. Come to an abbey,\nsee maid's uncle, who encourages G. Reach pavilions of Count Glimas\n(cf. _supra_), joust, and G. overthrows count himself, whom he sends\nprisoner to Gawain. Count treats them well. Next morning they go on;\nmeet six knights, with knight and maiden, whom they are treating very\ncruelly. Knight is Brandalis of the R. T.; by his oath of fellowship G.\nmust aid him first. Gosennes van Strangeloet comes up and frees maiden,\nwho is so much hurt she lives but six days. G. returns to maid he is\nescorting. They ride on and come to tent where is a dwarf (=1533=,\n_three pavilions, dwarf in first_), he will lodge them if his master\npermits; G. promises to leave if he objects. Knight comes with two\nmaidens; ill-treats dwarf. G. interferes, overcomes knight, and makes\nhim ask pardon of dwarf. G. has already slain his nephews (=1533=, _he\nwas one of the knights who had taken Brandalis_.)[225] Next morning\nthey ride on, and come to land of lady of Roestoc, where fight is to\nbe fought. Rejoiced to see G. for sake of Gawain, who had fought for\nher against Segurades, 'alse hier voren gescreven es,' l. 9366. (This\nevidently refers to the earlier part of the _Lancelot_, and makes it\nprobable that the Dutch compiler had also translated the first part\nof the work.) Fierce fight between G. and Gindan, the brother-in-law.\nLatter, seeing he is over-matched, jumps into river and is drowned;\nmaiden regains her land. G. departs; meets a maid who reproaches him\nwith cowardice: he did not free captive maiden, and has allowed his\ntwo brothers to be in prison. G. explains conditions of his vow, and\nasks about brothers. She tells him, and he rides to Sornahan's Mount,\noverthrows him, and frees Agravain and Gurries. S. _did not know who\nthey were_. (This is a contradiction of previous statement, that maiden\ntells him A.'s name and threatens him with Gawain's anger.) Brothers\nstay three days till wounds are healed, then ride forth. First night\nlodge with hermit; second, with rich man, who warns them not to seek\nLancelot in that land; there is civil war, the duke's six sons have\nrebelled against him because he made his daughter and her husband his\nheirs; they have slain these two. The three agree to help duke, ride\nto castle, overthrowing two knights on their way. Duke accepts their\naid, but does not know who they are. Great battle, Agravain is taken\nprisoner, but exchanged for two of the sons.\n\nLine 10735. ARTHUR and court are much distressed; do not know how\nadventure of the Grail is to be achieved if Lancelot be dead. (It is\nnot explained how they know of the Grail, nor is it clear whether L.\nis to achieve it personally, or through agency of Galahad.) Lionel\nreturns, and is much distressed at news. Questions wounded knight, who\nproves to be Bohort. (The reason for B.'s attempt to lead away the\nqueen is given in the earlier section of the _Lancelot_, so far as\n=D. L.= is concerned it is not explained.) Maiden comes from Lady van\nGalvoye to beg aid, wants Lancelot or Gawain, if both absent, will have\nB. B. and L. go with messenger. Queen gives B. a ring for Lancelot; if\nany one find him it will be B.\n\nLine 11167. QUEEN has dream L. is faithless to her. Very ill. When\nbetter sends her niece to 'Moustier Royale' to find Lady of the Lake,\nand bid her come to Guinevere.\n\nLine 11520. LANCELOT, six weeks before wounds are healed, then sets\nforth, and finds maiden lamenting, her sister had been carried off, and\nher lover slain in defending her. She has been to A.'s court, but they\nare too sorrowful to give aid. L. will help her if she will go errand\nfor him. She leads him to tower, knight too wounded to resist, frees\ndamsel. Maiden must now go to court, say she has seen a knight who had\neaten with L. 'and slept in same bed' (_not in_ =1533=). All greatly\nrejoiced. A. gives maid a castle.\n\nLine 11870. LANCELOT rides with sister, comes to a fountain, where two\nknights and two ladies are at a meal. They ask L. to join them. One\nmaiden falls in love with L. L. drinks from spring, two vipers have\npoisoned it, is very ill, and is nursed by maiden. While still ill,\nBohort and Lionel find him, and he sends his hair, which has fallen\nout, to queen, who is much rejoiced. (Love complications between maiden\nand L. Lionel again sent to queen, this time for advice. Maid swears to\nremain virgin for L.'s sake; L. will be her knight.) When cured L. and\nmaiden ride on, come to castle of the six brothers, who make up false\ntale as to their cause. L. believes them, and fights for them. Duke\nis killed, and the three sons of King Lot taken prisoners. L. is much\ndistressed, bids them be well treated, and rides off, hiding his name.\n\n(Here follows his slumber in forest with Lionel, when latter is carried\noff by Tarquin; L.'s being taken by the queens; released by daughter of\nDuke of Rochedon, and attending tourney. All this has been commented\nupon in chap. ix.)\n\nLine 14580. LANCELOT at the Grail Castle. This has also been previously\nnoticed.\n\nLine 15353. LANCELOT leaves castle, and comes to another 'surrounded\nby water' (_detail omitted in_ =1533=). Knight challenges him; lost\nin thought, L. does not hear, but rides over bridge, and is thrust\nfrom horse into water; gates closed, must spend night in wood. Sits by\nspring, three (=1533=, _four_) knights ride up, with maid who cured\nL. of poison; have carried her off against her will. She says were L.\nthere they would not have dared. Knights say L.'s father was a coward,\nhe must be one too; would do violence to lady. L. appears and rescues\nher, slaying one knight. They ride to castle of lady's kinswoman,\nwhere they spend the night. Next day L. will go to castle where he\nlost his horse. Host would dissuade him; failing, rides with him. Asks\ndoes he know Hector. Tells him H. is his brother (as H. is previously\nrepresented as one of A.'s most valiant knights, it is difficult to\nunderstand how L. comes to be ignorant on this point). The knight at\ncastle is H.'s uncle. Would not joust with L., but thinks this is not\nhe. Is overthrown. L. is welcomed by lady of the castle, who tells\nhim H. is her son and his brother. L. next comes to forest, with\nhermit's cell and chapel at entrance, with notice warning knights to\ngo no further. Hermit begs L. not to attempt the adventure; it is 'Der\nVerlorenen Forest'; has seen a hundred knights (=1533=, _two hundred\nwithin half-year_) enter, but none have ever returned. L. insists on\ngoing on (=1533=, _stays night with H._). Meets maiden, who warns him\nhe goes to his death. Comes to a clearing where is a company of knights\nand maidens dancing and singing; feels compelled to join them. Squire\nleaves him and returns.\n\nLine 16260. YWEIN stays at hermitage till wounds are healed, then\nrides forth. Meets dwarf, maiden has stolen his brachet; will Y. get\nit back for him? Promises to do so. Maid and knight ride up. Y. bids\ndwarf take dog; does so. Y. and knight fight fiercely; finally find it\nis Bohort, rejoiced to meet each other. Dwarf tells them L. is well,\nwas at tourney lately (=1533=, _also gives news of intended tourney at\nKamalot_). They separate. Y. goes to an Abbey of White Nuns, is healed\nof his wounds. Rides forth. Meets lady thrashing a dwarf, bids her\nstop; she will, if Y. will do what she wants; promises. He must kiss\nher; so ugly he hesitates. She reproaches him; he is certainly not Y.,\nshe will go to court and complain of him. Y. calls her back. She will\nlet him off if he will fetch sword, shield, and helmet from tent near\nby. Dwarf warns Y. she is most treacherous lady in land. Y. will go.\nRides with her, takes arms, leaving his own in their place. Maidens\nrush out of tent weeping and tearing their hair. He has dishonoured all\nmaidens in the land, will come to shame. Y. asks explanation. They will\nnot answer; he waits till evening, and as no one comes rides on to a\nhermitage, where he is well received. H. asks if custom still maintains\nthat no man may sit at R. T. unless he be wounded. Custom given up\nsince Lancelot, Galehaut, and Hector were admitted unwounded. Now each\nknight must vanquish one at least in week following, or forfeit seat\n(=1533=, _must have done so in preceding week_), (ll. 16770-875).\nY. asks of shield; belongs to a giant who had wasted the land, but\nfor love of a maiden had promised to remain in castle unless one did\nhim shame. After a year (=1533=, _longuement y avoit \u00e9t\u00e9_), becoming\nweary, had sought chance of release, so had hung up shield, setting\ntwelve maidens to watch it (=1533=, _the people of the land had set\nthe watch_). Now he will be free, land wasted and maids dishonoured.\nY. rides on, bearing shield; all flee from him (=1533=, _two maidens\nonly_). Finds two maids by spring; they bid him eat with them, does\nso. Knight comes up, would fight with Y. for having released giant. Is\novercome. Y. sends him to giant to tell him who it is who has taken the\nshield. Knight goes, giant strikes off his hand for tidings (=1533=,\n_giant gives him his choice: he may lose his hand for the shield or\nhis head for the helmet_),[226] and rides through land destroying\nand slaying wherever he goes. Y. rides on, seeking shelter; no one\nwill have him. At one castle fights with father and son. Sleeps under\ntree. Is wakened by sound of giant, who makes more noise than twenty\n(=1533=, _twelve_) knights. Y. calls him, but he is too angry to hear.\nY. mounts and rides after him. Comes to 'Castel van den Trepasse'; five\n(=1533=, _fifteen_) knights fall upon him, kill his horse, and make him\nprisoner; will deliver him to giant.\n\nLine 17470. BOHORT comes to lady of Galvoye. She has been deprived of\na castle by a knight, and needs champion; fight to be fought at King\nPelles's court. Come to Corbenic. King and daughter rejoiced to see B.;\ntell him of L.'s great deeds. Fights with and overcomes knight. Sees\nGrail. Does not sleep in 'palace of adventures.' Next morning comes to\na hermit, who knew his father and King Ban. Tells him how his father\nhad built this chapel in memory of a victory gained over King Cerces,\nand given it a golden (=1533=, _silver_) crown won from king's steward.\nB. leaves, meets maiden, who reproaches him for having left Grail\ncastle without testing adventures, should have slept in hall. (_Here_\n=1533= _gives adventure of a lady whose brother has been taken prisoner\nwhile seeking a sparrow-hawk. B. frees him._) Returns to Kamalot.\n\nLine 18070. GAWAIN meets the maid who cured L. of poison, and was\nrescued by him. Assures him L. is well. They ride together to court.\n\nLine 18130. LANCELOT at the '_caroles_' sits on throne in centre of\nring, and has crown placed on head. Enchantment ceases. Maid explains\nit has lasted ever since King Ban came there on his way from A.'s\nwedding. With him was a youth, his nephew, learned in necromancy. Fell\nin love with maiden sitting on throne, and for her sake wove spell\nthat dance should continue till fairest and bravest knight on earth\ncame.[227] Also made chessboard of gold and silver, which plays of\nitself against all men. At last clerk and maiden died, but spell was\nnot broken. L. plays with chessboard and wins; enchantment ceases for\never. Chessboard is sent as present to Guinevere. L. leaves castle,\nmeets knight, who threatens him, but flies when L. would fight. Comes\nto a high tower where party of knights lie in wait for him. They attack\nhim, overthrow and bind him, and cast him into pit infested with\nserpents. Maid releases him. Her father was nephew to Duke Karles whom\nL. has slain. Squire warns his lord of L.'s escape; he arms his knights\nand attacks L., who takes refuge in maiden's room. L. slays nineteen\n(=1533=, _more than twenty-four_). Father jumps out of the window, and\nbreaks his neck. L. tells maiden all are slain. She seeks father's\nbody, cannot find it, so thinks he has escaped. L. throws corpses out\nof windows. They go to rest, and maiden has dream which terrifies her\nmuch. Next morning they ride out together; hear cries for help, find\nknight ill-treating lady, and bids him stop, when he strikes off her\nhead and throws it in L.'s face. (This is the adventure in =M.=, Book\nVI., and has been commented upon earlier.)\n\nLine 19179. LANCELOT rides back to maiden, finds her gone. Meets\nknight, who asks if he has seen knight and maiden (=1533=, _two knights\nand maid_), asks for his maiden. She has been carried off by four\nknights. L. pursues. Finds them about to burn her. L. slays twenty\n(?), rescues maid: this was meaning of her dream. Knights were her\nbrother and three of his followers. Come to house of lady, where they\nstay fourteen days, till L. is cured from bites of serpents in the\npit. Ride together. Come to 'Castle of the Charrette.' Lad meets them;\nrejoiced at L.'s coming. Daughter of Duke of Rochedon, who freed L.\nfrom prison of queen, is to be married against her will to brother of\nQueen of Foreestan; it was he who slew her betrothed, his own nephew.\nL. enters church, challenges knight, who flies; lady receives her lands\nagain. Morgain le Fay is there, bids L. unhelm, 'in the name of her\nwhom he loves best.' They reproach each other, and M. threatens L. with\npunishment. L. and maid depart as quickly as possible, fearing M.'s\nspells.\n\nLine 19525. How knight with dead maiden fulfils L.'s commands, and body\nis buried.\n\nLine 19595. LANCELOT comes to Kamalot; lodges with hermit for tourney.\nSends maiden with letter to queen. She receives heritage for the one\nlost. King Ider, jealous of L. King and queen say he could overthrow\nall R. T. Knights very angry at this, except Gawain (=1533=, _and\nBohort_). Queen sends message to L. to come secretly and discomfit\nknights. L. is recognised by King Bagdemagus, who will aid him. L.\ncomes in red armour, does great deeds till he beholds queen, when he\nnearly swoons, and is carried off the field by K. B. R. T. knights get\nbest of it. Queen sends message by Bohort to tell L. to come secretly\nthat evening (maid of poison cure is there; queen is at first jealous,\nthen satisfied). Ider praises Red Knight, says L. would not have done\nso well. Queen makes King B. challenge A. to another tourney in three\ndays. L. spends each night with queen. Third day she arms him in white,\nBohort in red. L. not to enter field till after tierce. He overthrows\nand wounds Gawain and Gari\u00ebtte, and scatters knights of R. T. A. bids\nhim unhelm, is joyful at recognising L. Sunday, great feast made in\nhis honour. Chessboard is brought, all play and are beaten save L.\nClerk writes down on oath all L.'s adventures in book, which was found\nafter king's death. All others tell their story. A. says L. has done\nmore for honour of R. T. than all the rest put together; they are very\njealous. Decide to go forth and seek all who have not returned from\nquest. Gawain will seek his three (=1533=, _four_) brothers. (Confusion\nhere; when we last heard of Agravain, Gurr\u00ebes, and Gari\u00ebtte they\nwere prisoners. How did latter return for tourney? =D. L.= probably\nsaw this, and only mentions three brothers, including Mordred, while\n=1533= says four, which is certainly wrong.) Bohort will seek Hector\nand Lionel. (=1533=, _Will join quest; they shall not go without him.\nH. and L. are not mentioned._) Queen and L. talk over adventure of\nchurchyard as told by Gawain. She is sure L. is knight meant to achieve\nit, and is very sad; he will fail through his sinful love for her. L.\nsays he has more bliss from her love than from any feats of arms, all\nhe has done has been inspired by her. King Bagdemagus is made knight\nof R. T.\n\nLine 21596. LANCELOT, Bagdemagus, Gari\u00ebtte, and Bohort set forth;\nGawain will follow when wounds are healed. Come to castle of 'Witten\nDorne,' meet knight on horseback, naked, beaten, and ill-used by one\nhundred men; it is Mordret. Lord of the castle is Matheus die felle\n(=1533=, _Marchant li felon_). G. releases M., attack castle, slay lord\nand scatter his people. Ride fifteen days till they come to castle\nwhere Y. is in prison. Host refuses lodging; hates A.; has one of his\nknights in prison. They attack castle, and release Y. Are told of the\ngiant, he will come on the morrow, host had meant to give Y. up to\nhim. B. asks boon of L., that he may fight giant. L. unwilling, but\nconsents. Great fight, giant is slain. Next morning all ride forth\n(seven). Y. suggests they should separate. All ride different ways,\nmeet again at castle on All Saints Day.[228]\n\nLine 22120. LANCELOT rides fifteen days, meets maiden, asks her of\nLionel. She tells him, and promises to lead him to Tarquin's castle,\nif he will promise to go with her wherever she pleases afterwards. He\nagrees. (Adventure with Tarquin has been commented upon in chap. ix. p.\n154.)\n\nLine 22600. LANCELOT. Maiden leads him to knight who steals horses;\nmaid rides first, L. after; knight attacks maid and is slain by L.\nRests eight days till wounds are healed. Then would find Hector.\n(=1533=, _Meets old man who tells him H. had slain knight there\nprevious day, shows him road_.) Adventures at castle (cf. chap. ix. p.\n155). Finds at castle squire from A.'s court, bids him lead his horses\ninto 'ten Verlorene foreeste' and wait for him at cross. Comes with two\nknights whom he dismisses, rides into forest, meets maiden who says she\nis seeking him to achieve an adventure. Emissary of Morgain's leads\nhim to tower; drugs him. M. comes, blows powder up his nostrils, which\ndeprives him of his senses; when he recovers he is in prison. Sees man\nin outer hall illuminating, begs brush and colours, and paints on walls\nof prison history of his love for queen. M. sees this, and resolves to\nshow it to A.\n\nLine 23146. GAWAIN comes first to Tarquin's castle, now owned by 'Grave\nvan den Parke,' who tells him of L.'s feat. Then to hermitage, finds\nKing B. sick, has heard of L. slaying owners of Castle Vaguel. Tells\nhim of _rendezvous_ for All Saints. L. will surely be there. B. had\nhelped Gurr\u00ebes against four knights and been badly wounded. G. offers\nto stay with him, but B. will not allow it.\n\nLine 23260. Tryst at castle. All meet save L. and Bohort. Gawain says\n'twould be great shame to return to court without them, will seek till\nS. Mary Magdalene's Day, then quest will have lasted a year and a day.\nAll separate, agreeing to meet again at castle. 'Some ride all year,\nsome are taken prisoners' (_omitted by_ =1533=), finally only Mordret,\nAgloval (=1533=, _Agravain_) and Bagdemagus return. Much perplexed.\nDecide to send messenger secretly to court, to know if anything has\nbeen heard of questers. Finding nothing is known, swear to ride till\nthey find their comrades.\n\nLine 23388. LANCELOT lies all winter a prisoner, when summer comes\n(=1533=, _two winters, one summer, second spring_), scent of flowers\nand sight of roses remind him of Guinevere. Tears out bars of window\nand escapes, leaving insulting message with porter for M. Meets\nmaiden, who tells him Lionel is prisoner in castle of King Vagor of\nEstrangeloet. Challenged by king's son; unless he can find someone to\ntake his place will be overcome. L. will go. Meets wounded knight on\nlitter, if L. will lodge in his castle will meet one of A.'s knights\nwho lies sick there. He himself has been wounded by shot from maiden's\nbow, and iron cannot be pulled out till best knight in world comes. Has\nbeen to A's court, but useless till L. returns. A. is much distressed\nat absence of Gawain and L.[229] Go to castle, L. asks to be allowed\nto try to pull out shaft. Knight says it is no use to try unless he be\nL. Does not reveal name. Would see sick knight, it is King B., wounded\nin a tourney. Rejoiced to see L., tells him of quest. L. leaves next\nday, and B. tells knight who he was. Knight follows in litter. L. comes\nto the castle 'dat fremde eylant,' meets squire, who tells him Lionel\nis there, L. says he is one of A.'s knights. Will fight instead of\nLionel. King receives him well; Lionel is joyful. A lady had accused\nhim falsely to her husband, they fought, and husband was slain, he was\nking's son. Brother challenged Lionel, who being too badly wounded\nto fight at once had been imprisoned lest he escape. L. fights and\nis victorious, peace is made, and the two cousins ride off together.\nKnight in litter follows on their tracks. They come to an abbey,\n'Celice' or 'die cleine aelmoesene' in die 'Mersce van Scollant.' (Here\nfollows long story as to origin of abbey.)\n\nLine 24454. LANCELOT hears at abbey of castle near by,[230] 'die\nverbodene berch,' a knight had built it for love of his lady, only\na narrow footpath leads to it. At abbey shields of knights of R. T.\noverthrown by knight of castle; them he keeps in prison, all others\nhe slays. L. sees shields of Gawain, Ywein, and others (=1533=, _does\nnot mention Ywein_), and decides to rescue them. At foot of hills\nfinds hermit, who foretells his success. Finds cross with inscription,\nfor forty (=1533=, _twenty_) years all who came have been vanquished,\n'save one, and he doubtless was of David's line' (_omitted in_ =1533=).\nGoes on, finds pavilion with dwarf, who warns him not to fight, shows\nhim a horn he must blow. Prisoners in castle warn him; sees Gawain,\nwounded in the head. Knight appears. Fierce fight, finally L. gets\nthe better of his foe, who is Bohort (=1533=, _names B. in middle of\nfight, apparently forgetting that no one knows who he is_), he had\novercome knight of castle two years (=1533=, _one year_) ago, and been\nforced to take his place (by whom?). He may imprison his comrades but\nmust slay all others; did not know their names, would not ask them.\n(How, then, did he know they _were_ his comrades?) He is much ashamed\nand apologises to knights; all are rejoiced to see L. Stay there\nthat night. L. has wonderful dream. Old man appears, and bids him\nride without delay to 'ten Vreschlichen woude,' where he will find a\nwondrous adventure. He is his grandfather. L. rises, arms, and rides\naway at once. 'Comrades depart together' (_omitted in_ =1533=).\n\nLine 25150. LANCELOT meets dwarf, who warns him of great adventures.\nComes to hermitage by a fountain, where is a bleeding tomb guarded by\ntwo leopards (=1533=, _lyons_), whom L. slays. Sees head in fountain,\nwater is boiling, but takes head out and lays it in tomb; it is his\ngrandfather's body, treacherously slain by a kinsman on a Good Friday.\nFountain will not cease boiling till one comes who can bring adventure\nto end, which he cannot, on account of his sin with Guinevere.[231] L.\nrides on, comes to forest full of wild beasts. Rescues boy from bear.\nRides in search of lodging. Moon rises. Sees white hart with gold chain\nround neck, guarded by six leopards (=1533=, _lyons_), marvels much;\nswears not to leave forest till he has learnt meaning. Comes to two\npavilions, asks lodging. Must joust with owner; does so, and slays him;\ntwelve maidens make great lamentations, carry off body on bier; he was\na great king. L. is much distressed. Knight comes and asks lodging.\nHad kept Easter at A.'s court. All sorrowful because of absence of L.\nand G.; but joyful news has come that he who shall achieve adventure\nof Grail is born of Fisher King's daughter.[232] He seeks fountain\nof Sycamores, where a valiant knight has overthrown Gawain and Ywein;\ntwelve have made a vow to seek it. Boy knows road, will lead knight to\nit. On the morrow they separate; knight, Sarras van Logres, comes to\nfountain, fights with Belyas the Black, and is overthrown. L., who has\nfollowed secretly, comes up, overthrows B., gives S. his horse; tells\nhim his name, and bids him return to court, saying he and all questers\nare well, and will be at court for Pentecost. S. rides off, meets\nwounded knight seeking L.; directs him. Comes to court on a Sunday; all\nare rejoiced at news. A. will hold great feast in their honour.\n\nLine 26045. Maid sent by queen to Lady of the Lake comes to court\nof King Claudas; who asks tidings of L. and kinsmen. Maid says they\nare best and bravest knights alive, and will certainly come and slay\nhim, and take back their lands. Claudas imprisons maiden, and sends\nmessengers to court to see if her tale be true. One is so impressed\nthat he becomes A.'s man; other returns and tells C. what he has seen.\nFirst tells queen fate of maiden; she writes to C. bidding him free\nher. C. returns insulting answer. Queen, much distressed, longs for\nL.'s return.\n\nLine 26630. LANCELOT. When Sarras has left him, another knight appears,\nlike Belyas. They fight; knight flies, pursued by L. to castle near\nat hand. L.'s horse is slain; but he slays all who attack him, and\nreaches garden, where in tent, guarded by four knights, he finds\nMordret chained. L. releases him, and they escape together. Belyas and\nBryadas had wished to be knights of R. T. A. refused, not knowing them.\nThey had sworn to keep fountain against all comers; L. has mortally\nwounded both. L. meets wounded knight, whom he heals at last, sending\nmessage to King B. that questers are found; also to those released at\n'Verbodene berch,' bidding them meet him at court. Gawain is ready,\nbut Ywein demurs, all are not found yet. G. says duration of quest\nshould be year and day, they have been away three years. All agree\nto go. (This seems to indicate that =1533= was correct in not noting\ntheir departure earlier, as =D. L.= does, thus contradicting itself.\nProbably an earlier redaction did make them leave at once, while a\nlater introduced more of L.'s adventures. This points to the later\ninterpolation of 'tomb' adventures.) B. knights one of the squires,\n'Axille die blonde,' and gives him the castle.\n\nLine 27236. GAWAIN and comrades come to a castle by a deep water, where\nmen are erecting lodges for a tourney. It is the castle of Galehoudijn,\n'neve' of _Gawain_ (obvious mistake for Gallehault), (=1533=, _son of\nGallehault and la belle G\u00e9ande_, but she was Gallehault's mother).\nConceal their names, are well received and lodged outside castle.\nHear a tumult, and see Agloval pursued by forty armed men. Go to his\naid, and slay many. Their host is much distressed; they tell him they\nare of A.'s court. Galehoudijn arrives; is angry at first, but when\nGawain reveals their names, is much rejoiced, does them great honour,\nand knights their host. (=1533= _is very confused here, persistently\ncalling Galehoudijn, Gallehault; correcting mistake, and then relapsing\nagain._)\n\nLine 27735. LANCELOT[233] and MORDRET ride till nightfall. See white\nhart and leopards; decide to follow them. Two knights ride suddenly\nout of side road, unhorse them and take their steeds. Dwarf appears,\nwill lead them to horses, if they will give him a gift. Promise; he\nleads them to two pavilions where they find their horses, and go off\nwith them. Come to a hermitage, where they spend the night. L. asks\nH. of white hart; mystery may not be revealed till 'the good knight'\ncome. Asks of king whom he slew, and who was mourned by maidens (cf.\n_supra_, p. 239), he was named Merlan, from 'die Marchen van Scollant,'\na wicked man; L. did well to slay him. Next morning they ride away;\nare attacked by knights who stole their horses. M. overthrows them,\nand gives knights' horses to L. Spend this night with 'Vavasseur,' who\ntells them of Galehoudijn's tourney. They will go, host with four sons\n(_no number in_ =1533=) to attend them. Next morning they ride to hear\nMass. Meet an old man who prophesies M. shall be ruin of kingdom and\ndeath of his father, 'who is a mightier king than K. Lot.' M., angry,\nsmites off his head. L. finds letter on dead man saying who M. really\nis. Would slay him and avert mischief, but for love of Gawain, whose\nbrother he is. Come to tourney. Kings of Norgales and of a hundred\nknights there. L. discomfits all comers. Then rides out of press\nfollowed by Bohort, who suspects his identity. Meet, and agree to ride\nto court together.\n\nLine 28835. GAWAIN and his companions are much annoyed when they find\nthey have missed L. again. Agree to return to court, each going his own\nway.\n\nLine 29018. LANCELOT and BOHORT see a fire, hear cries for help. B.\ngoes to see, and finds maiden and brother being ill-treated by eight\nknights; slays three, rest fly. B. returns to L. who has disappeared;\nspends night in forest. (=1533=, _goes with maid, who is daughter of\nking of a hundred knights, to lodging, then with brother to find L.;\nnot doing so, returns and spends night with them. Departs next morning,\nand hears L. has been seen chasing a knight._)\n\nLine 29095. BOHORT, second visit to Grail castle. Tempts its\nadventures. Cf. _supra_, pp. 160, 233.\n\nLine 29695. LANCELOT comes to two tents, light, and a maiden and dwarf\nin one, asks for lodging. Her lover will not allow her to give it.\nKnight and brother ride up, throw L.'s armour out of tent. Fight. L.\nslays one and wounds the other. Rides to a hermitage where he passes\nnight. Next day meets two maidens sitting by spring, would eat with\nthem. Maiden pursued by black knight runs up asking for aid, before\nL. can reach his sword she is slain. L. very angry smites off knight's\nhead. Fourth night comes to forester's house in moon light.\n\nLine 29952. LANCELOT and KAY. Cf. _supra_, p. 156.\n\nLine 30380. LANCELOT after overthrowing knight of R. T. comes to two\npavilions, in one of which is maiden who cured him of poison. Sees\nBohort's son. Cf. _supra_, p. 157.\n\nLine 30584. GAWAIN and his comrades return to court and hang up shield\nL. has thrown down in middle of hall; telling how they were overthrown.\nQueen much distressed that L. has not come, gives them rich garments in\norder of valour. Bohort is best, then Gawain, Hector, Gari\u00ebtte, Lionel,\nBagdemagus (=1533= _omits Hector but gives others in same order_).\nKay arrives in L.'s armour. Other knights overthrown by L. come and\nrecognise shield. Next morning L. is seen coming, go out to meet him,\njoust, and Gawain overthrows him, L.'s horse being weary. Great Feast,\nA.D. 426 (=1533=, A.D. 225). A knight in white armour comes weeping, he\nis probably going to his death. Gives L. a letter--if he dies he is to\nread it aloud, if he survives return it. Sits in Perilous Seat, fire\ndescends and consumes him. He was Brumal (=1533=, _Brumant_), nephew of\nKing Claudas, who had vowed to prove himself a better knight than L.\nwho dare not sit there. Queen and L. talk apart, and she tells him of\nClaudas's insult; he vows to avenge her, C. has taken Gannes, Benoyc\nand _Aquitaine_. (=1533=, _Gaule and Benoyc_--[but Gaule was not yet\nL.'s].) L. takes counsel with his friends and resolves on war. Brimol\nvan Pleiche comes, was conquered by B. at bridge of Corbenyc (not\nrecorded previously).\n\nLine 31976. CLAUDAS prepares to resist A., gives all his nobles leave\nto go, richly rewards those who remain; is promised help from Rome.\n\nLine 32394. Recital of knights' adventures, recorded above.\n\nLine 32755. War with Claudas told at great length. Valiant deeds of\nGawain, Hector, and Bohort. King and L. join army later. A.'s fight\nwith Frollo and winning of Gaul is placed here. Claudas finally\nconquered, L. makes Hector king of Benoyc, Bohort of Gannes, Lionel of\nGaule (cf. _supra_, p. 201).\n\nLine 35465. Feast at Camalot. Arrival of Elaine, L.'s madness. Cf.\nchap. ix. pp. 161-163.\n\nLine 35830. PERCEVAL. His arrival at court. Adventure with Patrides;\nfight with Hector. Grail is vessel out of which Our Lord ate Paschal\nlamb in house of Simon the Leper.\n\nLine 36610. PERCEVAL and HECTOR come to house of a hermit who is priest\nto the fisher-folk, who provide him with fish, etc. After riding some\ntime they come to house of a man, who had lodged L. six months before,\nknows H. for his brother by likeness, L. was mad then.\n\n(This is not in =1533=, which says, _Or dit le compte que grant piece\nchevaucherent P. et H. ensemble per mainte terre estrange pour scavoir\nse adventure les meneroit en lieu ou ilz peu(s)(s)ent trouver L. ains\nchevaucherent maint yver et maint este ensemble._)\n\nLine 36705. LANCELOT. Adventure at pavilion, imprisonment, and fight\nwith boar (cf. p. 163). Breaks off short here, as if MS. came to an end\nand returns to\n\nLine 36947. PERCEVAL returns to court. They do him great honour.\n\nDamsel arrives (Grail messenger, but _Grail_ is not mentioned).\nCastle Orguelous and Montesclaire ventures. (From this point source\nis analogous to Chr\u00e9tien.) Gawain will go to Montesclaire, Ywein to\nCastle Orguelous, Kay and Griflet to 'Tere Dolorous' (not previously\nmentioned), Perceval will ride through land, jousting with all whom\nhe may meet. Ginganbresil arrives, challenges Gawain. All ride forth,\nGawain, Agravain, Gari\u00ebtte, Ywein, Perceval, Griflet, Kay and Mordret\nride together for four miles, then separate.\n\nLine 37105. GAWAIN adventure against Melias de Lis, and tournament as\nin _Conte del Graal_.\n\nLine 37584. KAY and AGRAVAIN go to seek Dolorous Castle. Meet maiden,\nshe will guide them thither if they dare to go there. Meet two knights\nwho will joust, K. and A. overthrow them, are attacked by eight and\nfinally taken prisoners, though A. defends himself stoutly. Will take\nthem to Castle D., before they have gone half a mile P. rides out of\nside road. They attack him, but he puts them to flight, rescues K. and\nA., the three take castle and sent lord prisoner to A.'s court.\n\nLine 37855. YWEIN and GARI\u00cbTTE meet a dwarf, who leads them to the\nCastle Orguelous. There they must joust against all comers. Ladies\nwatch from battlements, and as each knight is overthrown his lady sends\nwreath of roses to victor. Thus they vanquish twenty. At last sixty\nat once attack and overpower them, and they are led to castle, where\nladies insist on their being well treated.\n\nLine 38000. MORDRET and GRIFLET are warned by hermit of danger they run\nin going to Montesclaire. Ride on and are taken prisoners by tyrant who\nwill wed the lady of the castle.\n\nLine 38133. PERCEVAL hears how Y. and G. have been vanquished at\nCastle Orguelous. Rides thither with Kay and Agravain. P. overthrows\nten knights; K. and A. fifteen between them; when all attack them slay\ntwenty, wound fifteen, and take castle, setting Y. and G. and the\nmaidens free.\n\nLine 38230. GAWAIN. Adventure with lady and chessmen in tower as in\n_Conte del Graal_. G. is sent to find the bleeding 'white' spear. Comes\nto hermitage, hermit tells him how Mordret and Griflet have been made\nprisoners at Montesclaire, and are to be hanged in the morning. G. will\nrescue them. Rises early, rides to hill where gallows already set up;\nfrees M. and G. Tyrant appears, fight fiercely, G.'s strength increases\nat midday, overthrows tyrant, is fiercely attacked by his men.\n\nLine 38990. PERCEVAL hears of M.'s danger; rides with Y., G., K., and\nA. to aid. Comes up in time to help Gawain against four hundred men.\nSlay tyrant and free maiden. Gawain wins sword 'metten vremden ringen,'\nwhich will break if an unworthy knight handles it. Next morning\nseparate; G. goes to seek _Grail_ (which had not been mentioned\nbefore), others return to court.\n\nLine 39140. GAWAIN. Adventure with wounded knight and Ch\u00e2teau Merveil.\n(Here we are told that _Merlin_ made the _Lit Merveil_. Here too G.\nis warned he may not leave castle, but queen permits him to do so on\ncondition he returns in evening.)\n\nLine 40060. Adventure with Guiromelant. Lady is Orgeloise. The queens\ncame into the land after the death of Uther Pendragon, and _King Lot_\n(who in other romances is contemporary with Arthur), when there was\ncivil war in Logres. G. is girded for the fight by Tristram (who has\nnot previously appeared in the story). At prayer of Clareant a truce\nis declared, and A. says Guir. shall wed his niece. Kay bears tidings\nto G., who is so angry he vows he will not return to court. A. much\ndistressed. Twenty-four knights vow to seek G. for a year and a day.\n\nLine 40785. QUESTERS come third day into wood. Voice from thicket bids\nthem stand; they may go no further unless they joust for it. Kay and\nDodinel overthrown. Knight asks Tristram's name; he will not tell it\nunless knight tells his. He refuses; they fight fiercely till midday,\nwhen they rest. Knight sees others coming and fears to be known; flies\ninto wood. Squire comes to seek T.; his wife is ill, must see him. T.,\nK., and D. return. On way K. says he was overthrown unfairly. Knight\nis in wood, overhears, comes out and challenges K. and D.; puts them\nto the worse. T. and he fight again, lasts long, and T. is becoming\nexhausted, when maiden appears seeking knight; it is Lancelot. They go\noff together, and the three reach court safely.\n\nLine 41013. PERCEVAL, who has separated from the others, comes to the\nCastle of Orgeloise, who is besieged by old lover whom she left when\nshe rode off with Gawain. P. fights with and slays him. O. is hereafter\nknown as '_die goede joncfrouwe_.'\n\nLine 41160. AGLOVAL (who is seeking P.) meets knight, who will not\nreply to his greeting, but enters castle, arms himself, and attacks\nA. It is Gregorias, who stole Gawain's horse. A. slays him. Comes to\ncastle, where old man receives him kindly. Greg. was his foe; his sons\nare out seeking him. All rejoiced to hear of his death.\n\nLine 41420. GAWAIN. Visit to Grail Castle as in Montpelier MS. of\n_Conte del Graal_. Next day meets knight and maiden; former, hearing\nG.'s name, challenges him--he has slain his father. They fight, and\ndesist, since it is no honour to fight with none to behold. Will fight\nit out before court. He is Dyandras. G. goes to Scavaleon to report\nill-success of quest.\n\nLine 41660. GARI\u00cbTTE and GRIFLET come to a tower where Hector is\nimprisoned; find two knights ill-treating maiden for advising H.'s\nrelease. Free her. H. appears to aid her (has escaped). Lord of castle\npursues them with twenty men. Perceval and Agloval arrive; slay eleven,\nrest flee. All return to court.\n\nLine 41845. GAWAIN goes to Scavaleon to fulfil compact with\nGinganbresil. Dyandras comes and claims his fight. King consults\ncounsellors; they judge that G. must fight _with both at once_. Squire\ngoes to warn King A., who comes with court to witness fight. After a\ntime would stop it, with king's consent, but Ginganbresil refuses.\nGawain's strength doubles, and he conquers both. King and one hundred\nknights become A.'s men. Next day, rides homeward, stopping at castle\nof Tibaut of Tintavel, where G. is warmly welcomed. Then all go to\nCarlion.\n\nLine 42540. Then follows _Morien_. Cf. _supra_, p. 150.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  Abel, 180.\n\n  Ade, 12, 13.\n\n  Agloval, 36, 150, 162.\n\n  Agravain, 137, 149, 152, 157, 160, 186, 194, 195, 199.\n\n  Aguisel, 71.\n\n  Alexander, 81.\n\n  Arimathea (Joseph of), 121, 126, 127, 133, 134, 139, 209.\n\n  Armorica, 56, 57.\n\n  Arnoul, 181.\n\n  Arnout, _v._ Arnoul.\n\n  Arthur, 13, 15, 17, 21, 30, 32, 40, 41, 46, 47, 50, 51, 55, 56, 60,\n  62, 63, 65, 67, 71, 94, 103, 106, 107, 110, 113, 126, 135, 141,\n  154, 167, 184, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204.\n\n  Astolat (_v._ Escarloet), 194.\n\n  Avalon, 59, 60, 64, 65, 126, 153, 204, 205.\n\n\n  Bagan, _v._ Vagan.\n\n  Balaan and Balaain, 73, 167.\n\n  Ban of Benoyc, 91, 92, 129, 143, 177, 185, 192, 200, 201, 210.\n\n  Barenton, 72.\n\n  Bath, 47, 48, 59, 60, 83.\n\n  Baudemagus, 41, 101, 137, 143, 154, 158, 170, 184, 185, 203, 204.\n\n  Beaur\u00f6sch, 52.\n\n  Bedivere, 4.\n\n  Beforet, 12, 13, 14, 17.\n\n  Bel Inconnu, 97, 98.\n\n  Birch-Hirschfeld (Professor), 123.\n\n  Bleeding Tomb, 139.\n\n  Bohort, 21, 92, 121, 135, 136, 143, 144, 150, 153, 154, 156, 157, 160,\n  161, 163, 166, 168, 170, 178, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205.\n\n  Boiling Fountain, 139.\n\n  Borron (Robert de), 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 133, 158, 163, 210.\n\n  ---- pseudo _v._ above.\n\n  Bors, _v._ Bohort.\n\n  Briant des Illes, 129, 130.\n\n  Brimol van Pleiche, 160, 186.\n\n  Brisane, 142.\n\n  Broceliande, 72, 82.\n\n  Bromel le Pl\u00eache _v._ Brimol v. P.\n\n  Brunel du Plessis _v._ Brimol v. P.\n\n  Brut (_v._ also Layamon and Wace), 4, 6, 56, 71, 105, 106.\n\n  Brynhild, 47.\n\n\n  C\u00e6rnant, 82.\n\n  Cahere, 198.\n\n  Camalot, 83, 196, 197, 198.\n\n  Caradigan, 82.\n\n  Caradoc, 4, 91.\n\n  Carduel, 82.\n\n  Carlion, 83.\n\n  Cath Palug, 60.\n\n  Celidoine, 177.\n\n  Champagne (Marie de), 42, 48, 114.\n\n  Chapalu, _v._ Cath Palug.\n\n  Charrette (Chevalier de la), 5, 6, 7, 11, 19, 20, 21, 27, 30, 49,\n  50, 52, 53, 68, 81, 83, 101, 103, 112, 115, 116, 138, 143, 149, 185,\n  188, 194, 206, 212.\n\n  Charrette (summary of poem), chap. iv. 40-42.\n\n  Chastel du Trespas, 153, 154.\n\n  Ch\u00e2teau Merveil, 121.\n\n  Chester, 82.\n\n  Chevalier au Lion (_v._ also Yvain), 6, 42, 50, 100.\n\n  Chevalier \u00e0 la Manche, 18, 151.\n\n  Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes, 5, 6, 7, 10, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 42, 43,\n  44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 95, 103, 115, 121, 131, 134, 140,\n  143, 149, 191, 210, 211, 212.\n\n  ---- position in Arthurian cycle, chap. v. pp. 54-88.\n\n  Clarine, 11, 114.\n\n  Claudas (King), 4, 102, 129, 182, 183.\n\n  Claudins, 182, 183.\n\n  Clig\u00e9s, 5, 6, 42, 68, 79, 81, 83, 115.\n\n  Conlaoch, 109.\n\n  Corbenic, 121, 138, 139, 159, 160, 161, 167, 168, 181, 182, 183, 186.\n\n  Cuchullain, 24, 58, 109.\n\n  Cybele, _v._ Sibile.\n\n\n  Diarmid, 109, 110.\n\n  Dinasdron, 82.\n\n  Dodine le Sauvage, 15.\n\n  Dodinel, 150.\n\n  Dover, 83.\n\n\n  Elaine, 142, 160, 161.\n\n  Elayne, _v._ above.\n\n  Eleanor of Aquitaine, 48, 114.\n\n  Elidi\u00e2, 16.\n\n  Eliezer, 139.\n\n  Erec, 5, 15, 16, 64, 71, 79, 82, 115.\n\n  ---- (poem), 5, 6, 11, 27, 42, 53, 64, 69, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 115, 130.\n\n  Ernoulf, _v._ Arnoul.\n\n  Escalot, _v._ Escarloet.\n\n  Escarloet, 135, 187, 196, 197, 198.\n\n  Esealt der lange, 16.\n\n\n  Faler\u00een, _v._ Valer\u00een.\n\n  False Claimant (story of), 34, 35.\n\n  Fata Morgana, 19.\n\n  Fier Baiser, 18, 19, 98, 99.\n\n  Fisher King, 129, 138, 161, 168, 169, 192.\n\n  Foerster (Professor), 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26, 44, 49, 50, 93, 188.\n\n  ---- ---- theory of Arthurian evolution examined, chap v. pp. 54-88.\n\n  Frazer (Professor J. G.), 72.\n\n  Frollo, 4, 102, 126.\n\n  Furnivall (Dr.), _v._ Queste.\n\n\n  Gaheret, _v._ below.\n\n  Gaheriet, 15, 143, 150, 154, 158, 159, 172, 195, 196, 198, 199.\n\n  Galagandreiz, 12, 26.\n\n  Galahad, 97, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 129, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138,\n  142, 145, 146, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172,\n  174, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 191, 208, 209, 210.\n\n  Galehault, 136, 138, 147, 149, 153, 205.\n\n  Galehodyn, 153.\n\n  Galobrus de la Vermeille lande, 130.\n\n  Gand\u00een, 51, 116.\n\n  Garel, 53.\n\n  Gareth, _v._ Gaheriet.\n\n  Gari\u00ebtte, _v._ Gaheriet.\n\n  Gawain, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 31, 32, 33,\n  35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 51, 53, 57, 63, 67, 91, 93, 95, 99, 103, 108,\n  109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 120, 121, 129, 136, 137, 139,\n  143, 149, 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 166, 167, 169, 170, 173,\n  178, 183, 184, 185, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 208.\n\n  Genew\u00ees, 11, 17.\n\n  Geoffrey of Monmouth, 20, 55, 56, 102, 104.\n\n  Gildas, 46.\n\n  Ginganbrisil, 149, 150.\n\n  Giraldus Cambrensis, 64.\n\n  Girard de Viane, 71.\n\n  Glastonbury, 46, 48, 59.\n\n  Godefroy de Leigni, 42, 44.\n\n  Goothe, _v._ Goth.\n\n  Gorres, 43, 47.\n\n  Got, 174.\n\n  Goth, _v._ Got.\n\n  Graal, Conte del, 121, 189, 212.\n\n  Graalent, 64, 65, 77, 87.\n\n  Grail (Holy), 78, 80, 90, 97, 100, 120, 123, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137,\n  138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 161, 163, 168, 169, 173, 181, 191,\n  192, 208, 209, 210, 212.\n\n  Grail castle (_v._ also Corbenic), 121, 150, 183, 192.\n\n  Grail Quest, _v._ Queste.\n\n  Graislemier de Fine Posterne, 64, 65.\n\n  Grand S. Graal, 101, 121, 126, 127, 133, 137, 138, 139, 175, 179, 192,\n  209.\n\n  Griflette, 150.\n\n  Guendolen, 100.\n\n  Guerresches, 159, 198, 199.\n\n  Guinevere, 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 32, 38, 40, 41,\n  43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 90, 96, 100, 103, 104, 106, 107,\n  108, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 129, 135, 138, 141, 142, 158, 182, 188,\n  197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 207.\n\n  Guingamor, 64, 65, 77.\n\n  Guinglain, 19.\n\n  Gurnemanz, 13, 26, 28, 80.\n\n\n  Hagen (Herr P.), theory of Grail origin, 29, 52, 78.\n\n  Hartland (Mr. E. S.), 34, 62, 73, 84.\n\n  Hartmann von Aue, 5, 16, 26, 27, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 75, 80, 116.\n\n  Hector, 21, 136, 139, 143, 152, 153, 157, 161, 163, 178, 195, 198,\n  200, 201.\n\n  Heinzel (Professor), 129, 130, 213.\n\n  H\u00e9lie le Blank, 157, 170.\n\n  Henry II., 48.\n\n  Hertz (Professor), 26, 95.\n\n\n  Ibl\u00ees, 13, 14, 16, 17, 27.\n\n  Ider, 4.\n\n  Idylls of the King, 114.\n\n  Iseult, 1, 5, 37, 38, 45, 113, 116, 117, 197.\n\n  Isle of Women, 22.\n\n  Iw\u00e2n de Nonel, 27.\n\n  Iwanet, 95.\n\n  Iwein (_v._ also Yvain), 4, 49, 50, 52, 53, 95.\n\n  ---- (_v._ Hartmann von Aue).\n\n  Iweret, 12, 13, 27.\n\n\n  Johfrit de Liez, 12, 26.\n\n\n  Kailet, 27.\n\n  Kamalot, _v._ Camalot.\n\n  Karados, 203.\n\n  Karnachkarnanz, 27.\n\n  Kay, 4, 22, 30, 31, 40, 41, 44, 50, 51, 60, 151, 155, 156, 162, 200.\n\n  Kei, _v._ Kay.\n\n  Ker (Professor), 23, 24.\n\n  Kiot, 28, 29.\n\n  Kr\u00f4ne (Diu), 15, 22, 58, 80, 121.\n\n\n  Lady of the Lake, 23, 36, 94, 99, 138, 152, 207.\n\n  Lady of the Fountain, 67.\n\n  Lamorak, 162.\n\n  Lancelot, not a character of early Arthurian tradition, chap. i. pp. 1-7.\n\n  ---- origin of name, 8, 9, 10.\n\n  ---- rescuer of Guinevere, 15, 16, 40, 43.\n\n  ---- origin of legend, 21-25.\n\n  ---- _et le cerf au pied blanc_, chap. iii., 30-39, 151, 206-207.\n\n  ---- (prose), chaps, vi., vii., viii., 89-146.\n\n  ---- (Dutch), 30, 31, 38, 130, 131.\n\n  ---- comparison of text, chaps, ix., x., xi., 147-205.\n\n  Lanval, 64, 65.\n\n  Lanzelet, _v._ Zatzikhoven (Ulrich von).\n\n  Laudine, 70, 74, 75.\n\n  Laudunet, 10, 74, 75.\n\n  Layamon, 4, 27, 56, 93, 104, 105, 106, 111.\n\n  Limors, 12.\n\n  Lionel, 21, 92, 135, 136, 143, 152, 153, 156, 161, 166, 170, 178,\n  195, 200, 201.\n\n  Lohengrin, 210.\n\n  Lohot, 130.\n\n  London, 83.\n\n  Lot (M. Ferdinand), 59, 62, 64, 74.\n\n  Lot (King), 13, 26, 93, 159.\n\n  Loth (M.), 60.\n\n  Louis VII., 48.\n\n  Lucan, 204.\n\n\n  Mab\u00fbz, 13, 14.\n\n  Maelwas, 8, 10 (_v._ also Melwas).\n\n  Maheloas, 64.\n\n  Maimed King, 138, 161, 169, 192.\n\n  Malduc, 15, 16, 80.\n\n  Malduz, _v._ Malduc.\n\n  Malehault (Dame de), 101, 129.\n\n  Malmesbury (William of), 59.\n\n  Malory, 23, 45, 46, 49, 90, 101, 104, 108, 114, 131, 151, 165.\n\n  ---- comparison of text, chaps. ix., x., xi., pp. 107-205.\n\n  Mantle (Lai), 14, 19.\n\n  Map (Walter), 122, 125, 131, 163, 184, 210.\n\n  ---- (pseudo), as above.\n\n  Marie de France, 61, 65, 66.\n\n  Mathoeus die felle, 154.\n\n  Mauduiz li Sages (cf. Malduc).\n\n  Maur\u00een, 27.\n\n  Meide-lant, 11, 14, 22, 94.\n\n  Meleagant, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 51, 52, 59, 60, 101, 118, 138, 143, 185.\n\n  Melians de Lile, 171.\n\n  Meliot de Logres, 158.\n\n  Melwas, 8, 46, 47, 59, 60, 118.\n\n  M\u00e9raugis de Portlesguez, 18, 73.\n\n  Merlin, 23, 34, 60, 91, 92, 103, 107, 117, 122, 126, 127, 138, 142.\n\n  ---- (prophecies of), 100.\n\n  ---- (Suite de), 23, 73, 92, 122, 137, 184, 185, 204, 209.\n\n  Modena (bas-relief at), 4, 56.\n\n  Mordred, 20, 93, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 115, 118, 126,\n  154, 156, 159, 162, 199, 202, 203.\n\n  Morgain la fee, 64, 99, 153, 156, 160, 199, 204, 207.\n\n  Morholt, 92.\n\n  Morien, 35, 37, 150, 174, 181, 207.\n\n  Mort Artur, 93, 104, 122, 126, 127, 135, 137, 138, 145, 148, 151,\n  159, 184.\n\n  Mort Artur, comparison of text, chaps, xi. 194-205.\n\n\n  Nohan (Dame de), 97.\n\n  Norgales, 153, 196.\n\n  Nutt (Mr. Alfred, _Studies_), 120.\n\n\n  Orguelleus de la Lande, 80.\n\n  Orgeluse, 112, 149.\n\n  Orgeloise, _v._ Orgeluse.\n\n  Ossenefort, 79.\n\n  Oxford, 83.\n\n\n  Pallada, 178.\n\n  Pant of Genew\u00ees, 11, 91.\n\n  Paris (M. Gaston), 8, 9, 16, 32, 35, 40, 44, 60, 110, 150, 151, 188.\n\n  ---- (M. Paulin), 96, 101, 124, 127, 137, 149, 155, 190, 213.\n\n  Parzival (Wolfram von Eschenbach's), 26, 27, 28, 31, 94, 95, 96, 112,\n  118, 140, 181, 212, 213.\n\n  Patrides, 162.\n\n  Patryse, 195.\n\n  Pelles, King, 112, 138, 139, 160, 167, 168, 169, 183.\n\n  Perceval, 3, 5, 6, 24, 26, 33, 36, 42, 63, 69, 71, 78, 81, 83, 91,\n  95, 96, 98, 115, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132,\n  133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 142, 146, 149, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163,\n  167, 168, 170, 173, 174, 175, 178, 179, 181, 191, 192, 207, 208, 209,\n  210, 211, 212.\n\n  ---- Didot, 93, 126, 128, 134, 140, 191, 192, 205, 212.\n\n  ---- li Gallois, 107, 127, 129, 134, 140, 158, 181, 191, 212.\n\n  Peredur, 8, 9, 10.\n\n  Perilous Cemetery, 139, 158.\n\n  Perlesvaus (_v._ P. li Gallois), 130.\n\n  Perseus (Legend of), 34.\n\n  Philip of Flanders (Count), 78.\n\n  Plur\u00ees, 14, 15.\n\n\n  Queste, 34, 76, 101, 107, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130,\n  131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 144, 145, 148, 150,\n  153, 161, 208, 209, 210.\n\n  Queste, comparison of text, chap. x. 165-193.\n\n  ---- Welsh, 148.\n\n\n  Raguidel (vengeance de), 150.\n\n  Rajna (Professor), 6.\n\n  Rochedon (Duc de), 101, 153.\n\n  Rhys (Professor), 8, 10, 104, 108.\n\n  Rigomer, 18.\n\n\n  Scarloet, _v._ Escarloet.\n\n  Schofield (Dr.), 87, 98, 99.\n\n  Schr\u00eeenden Mose (den), 47.\n\n  Segramore, 5.\n\n  Shoreham, 83.\n\n  Sibile (l'Enchanteresse), 153.\n\n  Siegfried, 19, 24, 47.\n\n  Sommer (Dr., _Sources of Malory_), 49, 90, 131, 151, 214.\n\n  ---- Summary compared, chaps. ix., x., xi., pp. 147-205.\n\n  Soredamors, 81.\n\n  Sorelois, 153.\n\n  Sorestan, 152, 153.\n\n  Southampton, 83.\n\n\n  Tanebor, 196, 197.\n\n  Tarquijn, _v._ Terriquen.\n\n  Terriquen, 152, 187, 200, 203.\n\n  Torec, 18, 151.\n\n  Tristan, 1, 3, 5, 6, 15, 16, 35, 37, 38, 51, 91, 92, 100, 103, 107,\n  109, 110, 111, 113, 116, 117, 125, 128, 137, 159, 162, 191, 197, 207.\n\n  Turquin, _v._ Terriquen.\n\n  Tyolet, 32, 33, 35, 63.\n\n\n  Urre of Hungary, 187, 194.\n\n  Uther Pendragon, 142.\n\n  Uwayne, 172.\n\n\n  Vagan, 170.\n\n  Valer\u00een, 14, 15, 47, 48.\n\n  Villemarqu\u00e9 (M. de la), 8, 10, 101.\n\n  Vivienne, 99.\n\n\n  Wace, 20, 56, 72, 93, 104, 106.\n\n  Wallingford, 83.\n\n  Walter of Oxford, 105.\n\n  Wechssler (Dr.), 78, 101, 117, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128, 132,\n  134, 137, 150, 159, 187, 191.\n\n  Widow of Ephesus, 69, 70, 76, 77.\n\n  Winchester, 83, 195, 196.\n\n  Windsor, 83.\n\n  Wolff (lais), 77.\n\n  Wolfram von Eschenbach, 52, 53, 94, 95, 121, 130, 134, 141, 149,\n  150, 191.\n\n  ---- _v._ also Parzival.\n\n\n  Yonet, 95.\n\n  Yvain, 45, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 85,\n  94, 95, 96, 129, 153, 154, 155, 156, 202.\n\n  ---- _v._ also Iwein and Chevalier au Lion.\n\n\n  Zatzikhoven (Ulrich von), 11, 17, 20, 29, 44, 46, 66, 80.\n\n  ---- Lanzelet of U. _v._ chap. ii., 47, 66, 80, 91, 93, 94, 98, 99,\n  102, 206.\n\n  Zimmer (Professor), 9.\n\n\n  Appendix, pp. 215-247, not included in above INDEX.\n\n\n Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, (late) Printers to Her Majesty at the\n Edinburgh University Press\n\n FOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] _Brut_, ed. Leroux de Lincy, vol. ii. ll. 10158-10360. These\nremarks also apply to Layamon.\n\n[2] Described and illustrated by Zimmerman in _Oberitalische Plastik\nim fr\u00fchen und hohen Mittelalter_: Leipzig, 1897. Cf. also _Romania_,\nxxvii. p. 510.\n\n[3] It is difficult to resist the conclusion that if the Welsh stories\nwere as late in date and as dependent upon French tradition as some\nscholars maintain, Lancelot would certainly be mentioned in them.\n\n[4] Cf. _Erec_, Foerster's ed., l. 1694; Hartmann's _Erec_, l. 1630.\n\n[5] _Clig\u00e9s_, Foerster's ed., ll. 4765-4798.\n\n[6] The advocates of Chr\u00e9tien as an independent and original genius\nwould do well carefully to consider the meaning of such curious\ninconsistency. If Chr\u00e9tien were dealing with matter either of his own\ninvention, or of his own free adaptation, he would surely have been\nmore careful of the unities. If, on the other hand, he simply retold\ntales belonging to different stages of Arthurian tradition, this is\nexactly what we might expect to find.\n\n[7] In the opening lines of _Clig\u00e9s_, Chr\u00e9tien gives a list of his\nworks. This includes a version of the story of _Tristan_, and several\ntranslations from Ovid. _Tristan_ probably preceded _Erec_, but there\nis nothing to indicate the relative order of the other works.\n\n[8] Signor Rajna has found the names of Arthur and Gawain in Italian\ndeeds of the first quarter of the twelfth century, and from the nature\nof some of these deeds it is clear that the persons named therein\ncannot have been born later than 1080.\n\n[9] _Charrette_, ll. 2347-2362.\n\n[10] _Romania_, vol. x. p. 492.\n\n[11] _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_, chap. vi.\n\n[12] The only adventure of the kind I can recall is that of the fiery\nlance of the _Charrette_ and prose _Lancelot_, an adventure which is\nthe common property of several knights, and by no means confined to\nLancelot.\n\n[13] _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr franz\u00f6sische Sprache und Litteratur_, vol. xii.\nHeft I.\n\n[14] _Der Karrenritter_, herausgegeben von Wendelin Foerster: Halle,\n1899.\n\n[15] Cf. _Anturs of Arthur_, where the ghost foretells to Gawain the\ntreason of Mordred, the destruction of the Round Table, and his own\ndeath. Lancelot is not mentioned. Nor does he appear in _Syr Gawayne\nand the Grene Knyghte_ or in _The Avowynge of Arthur_. In some of the\nother poems, _Galogres and Gawayne_, _The Carle of Carlile_, _The\nMarriage of Sir Gawain_, and _Sir Libeaus Desconus_ he is mentioned,\nbut plays no important part. The ballad of _Sir Lancelot du Lake_ in\nthe Percy Collection is a version of an adventure related in the Prose\n_Lancelot_.\n\n[16] Cf. _Karrenritter_, Introduction, p. xxxix.\n\n[17] The materials for this study had been collected, and my conclusion\nas to the origin of the Lancelot story arrived at, before the\npublication of Professor Foerster's book. I am glad to find myself\nsupported in any point by such an authority, but think it well to avoid\nmisconception by stating that my results have been arrived at through\nindependent study.\n\n[18] _Lanzelet_ von Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, ed. Hahn: Frankfurt, 1845.\nOut of print and difficult to procure.\n\n[19] This account, and the mention of England, l. 7054, seem to render\nit possible that the original poem may have been written in this island.\n\n[20] This is entirely in accordance with Tristan's character as\nrepresented in the poems. He is in the highest degree _rus\u00e9_ and\nresourceful.\n\n[21] Is it not possible that this _Malduz_ the magician may be the\noriginal of _Mauduiz li Sages_ whom Chr\u00e9tien ranks as eighth of\nArthur's knights? Cf. _Erec_, 1699. Hartmann's version gives Malduiz;\n_Diu Kr\u00f4ne_, 1379, Malduz der Weise. The identification seems clear.\n\n[22] I am quite at a loss to account for the mistake into which such\nauthorities as M. Gaston Paris and Professor Foerster have apparently\nfallen. In M. Paris's study the idea that Lanzelet is the rescuer is\nperhaps rather implied than stated, but when I wrote the _Charrette_\nchapter (viii.) in my _Studies on the Legend of Sir Gawain_, in\nwhich I followed the article in _Romania_, I was certainly under the\nimpression that the latter was the case. In the introduction to the\n_Karrenritter_, p. xliv., Professor Foerster distinctly says that\nLanzelet frees the queen. I have read and re-read the text carefully\nand made my final summary direct from it, and there is no doubt that\nLanzelet has nothing to do with the matter. The passage in question\nis contained in ll. 6975-7445. How too did Professor Foerster come to\nignore the real character of Guinevere's imprisonment? Cf. _Charrette_,\nlxxi.\n\n[23] _Karrenritter_, Introduction, p. xliv.\n\n[24] I think it is worthy of note that though Lanzelet is the hero of\nthe tale here and not Guinglain, Gawain's son, as elsewhere, yet in\nthis poem Lanzelet is Arthur's nephew, and of Gawain's kin, which he is\nnot in any other version. The _Fier Baiser_ is thus still restricted to\nthe family of Gawain.\n\n[25] Cf. my _Legends of the Wagner Drama_, _Siegfried_.\n\n[26] I say especially 'as told by Geoffrey and Wace,' for these writers\ngive us clearly to understand that the queen was a consenting party,\nand no victim to Mordred's treachery. It is quite a different version\nfrom that of the prose _Lancelot_.\n\n[27] I shall have occasion to refer very frequently to Professor\nFoerster's introduction. It is a full and powerful statement of views\nwhich so far as they affect the origin and evolution of the Arthurian\nlegend I believe to be radically unsound. It is most useful to have at\nhand a summary so clear and concise.\n\n[28] _Merlin_, G. Paris and Ulrich's ed., vol. ii. pp. 136-137.\n\n[29] In the prose _Lancelot_ the hero is always addressed as 'king's\nson.' Cf. in this connection Professor Ker's review of my _Legend of\nSir Gawain_, Folk-lore, vol. ix. p. 266. I incline to think that the\nquestion of a hero's possessing from the first a name and a well-marked\nstory depends upon whether he has or has not an existence in _myth_.\nIf of mythical origin he probably would have both, if an actor in\nfolk-tale very likely neither; thus while I should reject Professor\nKer's correction as regards _Gawain_, I would certainly hold it true\nof _Lancelot_. In the case of this latter hero, I think his name may\nwell have been determined by his title du Lac. The tendency of early\nverse is towards alliteration, probably mere chance determined the\n_Lancelot_, the one essential was that it should begin with an _L_. It\nshould, I think, also be noted that while in the _Lanzelet_ the hero's\nignorance of his name and birth are genuine, in the prose _Lancelot_ he\nknows who he is, and the wrong done to his father and uncle by Claudas.\nThe pseudonyms '_Filz du Roi_,' '_Beau Varlet_' are here unnecessary; a\nmeaningless survival from the original tale.\n\n[30] This feature is, I think, peculiar to Wolfram; Chr\u00e9tien does not\nmention it.\n\n[31] Professor Hertz, in his edition of the _Parzival_, p. 440, records\nthese points of contact, but does not discuss the question of the\nrelation of the two poems. Professor Foerster in his introduction\nsimply notes that the instruction by Johfrit de Liez recalls the\n_Perceval_ story.\n\n[32] Layamon '_Brut_' knows Maurin of Winchester as a kinsman of\nArthur's, ll. 20238 and 24336. I have not found the name elsewhere.\n\n[33] It appears to me that, in view of Herr P. Hagen's excellent\ndemonstration of the correctness of the many curious Oriental\nreferences with which the _Parzival_ abounds, and his remarkable\nidentification of Wolfram's Grail with a sacred _B\u00e6tylus_ stone, it is\nimpossible any longer to deny the possession, by Wolfram, of a source\nother than Chr\u00e9tien's poem. But whether the _Lanzelet_ offers another\nproof or not I should hesitate to say. If it does, the evidence,\nextending as it does over so much of the _Parzival_, is of the greatest\nvalue as an indication of the extent of Kiot's work.\n\n[34] _Lancelot_, ed. Jonckbloet, vol. ii. ll. 22271-23126. The\nsummaries in this chapter, and all subsequent references to the Dutch\n_Lancelot_, are taken direct from the text. A summary of the romance\nhere discussed is given by M. Gaston Paris, _Histoire Litt\u00e9raire de la\nFrance_, vol. xxx. p. 113.\n\n[35] Throughout the Dutch _Lancelot_ we have constant references to\nGawain's skill in healing. Cf. _Parzival_, x. 104. Chr\u00e9tien does not\nappear to know this trait in Gawain's character.\n\n[36] The _lai_ of _Tyolet_ was published by M. Gaston Paris in vol.\nviii. of _Romania_, '_Lais In\u00e9dits_.' I have given a prose translation\nin vol. iii. of _Arthurian Romances unrepresented in Malory_.\n\n[37] Cf. _Merlin_, Sommer's ed. chap. xxiv. p. 302.\n\n[38] _Tristan_, vol. i. Book XIII., ed. Bechstein, _Deutsche classiker\ndes Mittelalters_; also my translation of same, _Arthurian Romances_,\nNo. ii. vol. i.\n\n[39] Dutch _Lancelot_, vol. i. l. 42,540 to end. The portion dealing\nwith the adventure begins l. 43,593; the adventure itself, l. 46,514;\nalso summarised in _Hist. Litt._ vol. xxx.\n\n[40] The poem itself has been discussed by M. Gaston Paris in\n_Romania_, vol. xii., and by Professor Foerster in the introduction\nto his edition. The question of Guinevere's rescuer has been treated\nby Professor Rhys in his _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_, and in\nM. Gaston Paris's article just referred to, and that on Ulrich von\nZatzikhoven's _Lanzelet_ in _Romania_, vol. x. I have also devoted a\nchapter in my _Legend of Sir Gawain_ to the subject.\n\n[41] The concluding portion of the poem is by Godefroy de Leigni,\nwho, however, worked with Chr\u00e9tien's knowledge and approval, so that\npractically the work may be held to be Chr\u00e9tien's throughout.\n\n[42] Livre, _Clig\u00e9s_ and _Perceval_; conte, _Erec_ and _Chevalier au\nLion_. The concluding lines of the latter, 'qu'onques plus conter n'an\no\u00ef,' clearly indicate this. I shall return to this subject in the next\nchapter.\n\n[43] The manifold discrepancies of Chr\u00e9tien's version were long ago\nremarked upon by M. Gaston Paris, and even Professor Foerster, with all\nhis enthusiasm for the poet, is constrained to admit their existence,\nbut he considers some of the puzzles were of Chr\u00e9tien's own making, and\nhe intended later to clear them up. Why then did he not explain them to\nGodefroy de Leigni, who finished the poem with Chr\u00e9tien's approval?\n\n[44] I do not here include either the medi\u00e6val Welsh fragments or\nMalory's account. The meaning of the former cannot be accurately\nascertained, and the latter practically represents the same version as\nthat of the _Charrette_ poem, though the question of _source_ cannot,\nas I shall prove later on, be held to be definitely settled.\n\n[45] Cf. Simrock, _Handbuch der deutschen Mythologie_, _Dornr\u00f6schen_.\nSome of the details of Arthur's journey to Valer\u00een's stronghold are\nworth the attention of folk-lore experts, _e.g._ the curious account of\nthe _Schr\u00eeenden Mose_, that at certain times utters loud cries, _dr\u00ee\ntage vor sunegihten s\u00f4 schr\u00eet daz mos und selten m\u00ear_, and the curious\nfish in its stream, which are '_ebenlanc und ebenkurz_,' and of which\n'_die Engellende_' have many. Cf. _Lanzelet_, ll. 7040 _et seq._\n\n[46] On these varying forms of the '_other-world_' dwelling, cf.\n_Rassmann Heldensage_, vol. i. p. 152.\n\n[47] _Legend of Sir Gawain_, chap. viii.\n\n[48] As a rule, whenever in the _Iwein_ Hartmann does depart from his\nsource, it is with the effect of making the story more coherent and\nprobable. I have noted several instances of this in my study on the\n_Yvain_ poems, _Modern Quarterly for Language and Literature_, July and\nNovember, 1898.\n\n[49] Cf. _Parzival_, Book VII. 1472.\n\n[50] Cf. _Parzival_, Book VII., as above; also 590 _et seq._ and 1355\n_et seq._\n\n[51] Cf. _Der Gral_, P. Hagen: Strassburg, 1900. I am unable to accept\nthe author's contention that the _B\u00e6tylus_-Grail represents the\noriginal form of the talisman; but he certainly proves the correctness\nof the many curious references to Oriental literature which are\npeculiar to Wolfram's version of the story, and cannot possibly have\nbeen within that writer's own knowledge.\n\n[52] In this connection, cf. Dr. Brown's study on _The Round Table\nbefore Wace_, vol. vii. of _Harvard Studies_: Boston, 1900; and the\nincidental demonstration that Layamon had access to Welsh traditions\nunknown to Wace.\n\n[53] For the first, cf. _Legend of Sir Gawain_, chap. ix., where I have\ndiscussed the variants of the poem. For _The Marriage of Sir Gawain_,\ncf. Mr. Maynadier's exhaustive study of _The Wife of Bath's Tale_,\nvol. xiii. of the present series. In the case of the _Green Knight_\nthere are certain peculiarities of names which point to an intermediate\nFrench stage, which, in this instance at least, cannot well have been\nother than an Anglo-Norman poem.\n\n[54] The French variant which seems to have most affinity with the tale\nreferred to is that of the Didot _Perceval_, printed by M. Hucher in\nvol. i. of his _Saint Graal_, p. 453.\n\n[55] Introduction, _Charrette_, p. cxxvii.\n\n[56] Cf. 'Nouvelles Etudes sur la provenance du cycle Arthurien,'\n_Romania_, vols. xxvii. and xxviii.\n\n[57] Cf. _Artus Kampf mit dem Katzenungetum_, E. Freymond, Halle: 1899.\n\n[58] _Romania_, vol. xxix. p. 121 _et seq._\n\n[59] The evidence of the _lais_, and the fact that Marie de France\nwas Chr\u00e9tien's contemporary, forbids us to postulate an entirely oral\ntransmission.\n\n[60] Of this the '_runs_' of Celtic and Gaelic story-tellers form a\ngood example. Cf. Hyde's _Beside the Fire_, p. xxv.\n\n[61] Mr. E. S. Hartland, to whom I submitted the question.\n\n[62] Cf. M. Ferd. Lot 'La patrie des lais Bretons,' _Romania_, vol.\nxxviii.\n\n[63] Chap. iii.\n\n[64] 'Morgue la F\u00e9e et Morgan Tud,' _Romania_, vol. xxviii. p. 327.\n\n[65] Professor Foerster's references to this character (_Charrette_,\nlxxiii.) are perplexing. He prints Chr\u00e9tien's description of the\n'Ile' side by side with a parallel passage from Giraldus Cambrensis,\n_Topographia Hiberni\u00e6_, informing us that both are 'ganz einfach eine\nnaturgetreue Beschreibung von Irland.' He cannot mean us to understand\nthat the one description is borrowed from the other; the work of\nGiraldus is at least thirty years later than the _Erec_ (_circa_\n1186), and that chronicler would hardly go to a romancer like Chr\u00e9tien\nfor the description of a country he knew personally. But _is_ it a\n'_Naturgetreue_' description of Ireland at all? Professor Foerster is\ncompelled himself to admit na\u00efvely, '_Gewitter und St\u00fcrme fehlen nicht\nganz_!' Is this not rather a description of the fabled Irish Paradise\nwhich Chr\u00e9tien and Giraldus alike have borrowed from a source common to\nboth?\n\n[66] Of course I here use the word _Breton_ in a general sense as\nopposed to _French_. I do not intend to imply that Arthur is of\n_Continental_ origin.\n\n[67] _Ueber die Bedeutung von Bretagne, Breton_, Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\nfranz\u00f6sische Sprache, xx. 79-162.\n\n[68] Cf. chap. ii.\n\n[69] Cf. _Charrette_, lxxxi. and cxli.\n\n[70] Cf. on this point Professor Foerster's Introductions to his\neditions of the _Yvain_, 1887 (large ed.), 1891 (small ed.).\n\n[71] Cf. Grisebach, _Die Treulose Witwe_: Wien, 1873.\n\n[72] Cf. review of _The Legend of Sir Gawain_. Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\nfranz\u00f6sische Sprache, No. 20, p. 95.\n\n[73] Cf. Gautier, _Epop\u00e9es Fran\u00e7aises_, vol. ii. p. 89 ff.; also\nHelisant, in _Garin le Loherain_.\n\n[74] Cf. _Brut_, ed. Leroux de Lincy, vol. ii. ll. 13597-99.\n\n[75] Cf. _The Golden Bough_, J. G. Frazer.\n\n[76] Cf. _Merlin_, ed. Paris and Ulrich, vol. ii. pp. 44-56; _Meraugis\nde Portlesguez_, ll. 2915 _et seq._\n\n[77] _Vide supra_, _Legend of Sir Gawain_, Zeitschrift f\u00fcr franz. Spr.\n\n[78] M. Ferd. Lot, to whom I am indebted for the verification of this\npassage, writes: 'Le () r\u00e9presente un l\u00e9ger blanc occasionn\u00e9 par un\nd\u00e9faut du parchemin, en sorte qu'on pourrait lire en deux mots _Lan\ndonez_ (d'o\u00f9 _l'ont donez_); on peut lire La_n_-donez aussi bien que\nLa_u_donez.'\n\n[79] Cf. Introduction to _Yvain_, large edition, where it is referred\nto as G.\n\n[80] Cf. chap. x. p. 182, where the passage referred to is given in\nfull.\n\n[81] To say, as Professor Foerster does, that the spring=grave is to\nmisrepresent the incidents; the castle in which the lady dwells is some\ndistance from the spring, as we see in Yvain's chase of his flying foe.\n\n[82] I do not know that it is has any real bearing on the question,\nbut the passage from _Flamenca_ quoted by Wolff (_Lais_), p. 51, is\ncurious: '_L'uns viola lais del cabrefoil, E' l'autre cel de Tintagoil;\nl'uns cantet cels des fis amanz, E l'autre cel que fes Ivans._'\n\n[83] P. cxli. _et seq._\n\n[84] It should be noted that Professor Foerster offers no arguments; he\nonly makes assertions. There may, or there may not, have been a Grail\nromance which knew nothing of Perceval, certainly we have no traces\nof such, but how _can_ we tell what would be the character of such\na story? There are any amount of theories on the subject. Wechssler\nhas his, Hagen his, diametrically opposed to each other. Theories\nunsupported by proof are useless as argument. Professor Foerster is\nvery fond of telling us this; but the moment we get on to the question\nof Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes and his sources, _adieu_ proof. We are wrapped in\nthe mists of subjectivity.\n\n[85] The italics are mine.\n\n[86] Cf. _Erec_, l. 1526; list of knights, l. 1691 _et seq._\n\n[87] Cf. _Erec_, l. 1699; Hartmann, _Erec_, l. 1635; _Diu Kr\u00f4ne_, l.\n1379 (Adventure of the Cup); _Lanzelet_, ll. 7353-64.\n\n[88] If Malduz, or Malduc, were a well-known enchanter, and connected\nwith the Arthurian story, as he appears to have been, how did he vanish\nfrom it? Was it the greater popularity of _Merlin_ which displaced him?\nWhat is the origin of his name? It sounds as if it might be Celtic, or\ncan he be in any way connected with Maugis, the resourceful cousin of\n'_Les quatre fils Aginon_'?\n\n[89] So far as the _Perceval_ story is concerned, there is certainly\nevidence of varying forms, _e.g._, Whence did the continuators of\nChr\u00e9tien, notably Gerbert, draw their versions? And what of the\n_Perceval_ embodied in the Dutch _Lancelot_, which appears to be\nindependent, so far as the working out of the adventures suggested by\nthe Grail messenger are concerned, of any known version?\n\n[90] Professor Foerster's attempt to base an argument on the source\nof _Clig\u00e9s_ cannot for a moment be accepted, cf. Introduction,\n_Charrette_, cxxxviii. We only know that the source was a book; but\nwhat that book contained, no one can say. We can never argue from the\n_un_known to the known. We do not know much of Chr\u00e9tien's sources for\nthe other poems, but the grounds for an investigation _do_ exist in\nthe above instances, they do _not_ in _Clig\u00e9s_. We must find out how\nChr\u00e9tien dealt with _Erec_, _Yvain_, and _Perceval_ before we are in\na position to offer the slightest hypothesis as to his treatment of\n_Clig\u00e9s_. The fact that Mark of Rome gives a short summary of the story\nis interesting, but so brief a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ is of little critical value. It\nis certainly not a _book_, therefore cannot possibly be identical with\nChr\u00e9tien's source.\n\n[91] On this subject, cf. any scientific collection of folk-tales,\n_e.g._, _The Science of Fairy Tales_, by Mr. E. S. Hartland, or in the\nsame author's _Legend of Perseus_, the tabulated variants of the Dragon\nstory in vol. iii. These would help the reader to realise the number\nof _motifs_ often combined in a single story. The _lais_ of _Lanval_,\n_Graalent_, and _Guingamor_, comparatively short though they be, yet\ncombine at least three distinct story-_motifs_, _i.e._ what we may call\nthe Joseph and Potiphar's wife, Tannh\u00e4user, and Lohengrin themes. Any\none of these _lais_ would be capable of considerable expansion.\n\n[92] I have studied the _Yvain_ versions carefully, and have read\nthose of _Erec_, but not compared them critically; but I should not\nbe surprised if it were ultimately found that in _The Lady of the\nFountain_ we have the story at a stage anterior to Chr\u00e9tien, and\nprobably that at which it came into his hands, _redacted by the Welsh\nscribe under the influence of Chr\u00e9tien's poem_; while in _Geraint_\nwe have the process reversed, _i.e._ a rendering of _Chr\u00e9tien's poem\nmodified by the earlier version_. In the statement, '_Gwiffert Petit\nhe is called by the Franks, but the Cymry call him the Little King_,'\nwe have, I think, a hint of this. The writer must have been too good\na French scholar to think the one term a translation of the other; it\nrather implies that the Welsh knew the character only by a sobriquet\nborrowed from his diminutive size, which is exactly what we should\nexpect, the earlier stages of story-telling being anonymous. So far as\nthe correspondence in word and dialogue is concerned, the conclusion\nto be drawn depends entirely on the nature of the parallel passages;\nif they be merely such ordinary dialogue (question and response) as\nwould naturally spring from the incidents of the story, both may well\nbe reminiscences of the oral version. Analytic, self-communing passages\nwould, of course, point to a later stage in evolution; but the Welsh\nversion dialogue is of the simplest description.\n\n[93] Professor Foerster recognises this argument in a measure, but does\nnot appear to realise its full bearing.\n\n[94] I should myself be inclined to limit Chr\u00e9tien's share in the work\nto the rearrangement of existing combinations. I do not think he ever\nmade any new combination, unless it were in the case of _Clig\u00e9s_, and\nthat is only a 'perhaps.'\n\n[95] Cf. _Lays of Graalent and Lanval_, p. 175.\n\n[96] The printed editions of the prose _Lancelot_ chronicled by Dr.\nSommer, _Sources of Malory_, p. 8, note, are 1494, Ant. Verard; 1513,\nPhilippe Lenoire; 1533, Jehan Petit. There was also an edition 1533,\n_Philippe Lenoire_, which represents a very important text, and one\nwhich Dr. Sommer does not appear to know. A copy is in the Bodleian\n(Douce collection).\n\n[97] It is difficult to know exactly what value to place on the\ntraditional relationship of uncle and nephew as postulated of Arthur\nand Lancelot in the poem of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven. This is so\ncompletely a _lieu commun_ of heroic romance. Except in the case of a\nhero of distinctly mythical origin such as Gawain, I am inclined to\nconsider it as marking a secondary stage in the evolution of a hero,\nhe would have attained to a certain degree of popularity before it\nwas postulated of him--thus Perceval and Caradoc are each, in turn,\nArthur's nephews. In the case of Lancelot it probably represented an\nintermediate stage between entire independence of Arthur (the original)\nand son of a faithful ally (the final) form.\n\n[98] _Merlin_, Sommer's ed., chap. xxxiii. The _Lancelot_ legend\nappears to me to offer a very interesting parallel to the methods\nemployed by the compilers of the _Chansons de Geste_, which are so\nably pointed out by M. Leon Gautier in his _Epop\u00e9es Fran\u00e7aises_. The\noriginal story of the hero forms a nucleus from which other romances\ndepart in a downward direction--dealing with sons and, perhaps,\ngrandsons;--in an upward, dealing with father and grandfather--till\na complete cycle is thus formed. We have exactly this process in\n_Lancelot_--the _Queste_ extols the deeds of his son, the _Merlin_\nthose of his father; and we have indications that the story was well\non the way to the evolution of a secondary branch, that of Bohort and\nhis son. None of the other Arthurian heroes has undergone a parallel\ndevelopment.\n\n[99] Cf. _Merlin_, ed. Paris and Ulrich, vol. ii. pp. 137, 143.\n\n[100] _Ibid._ pp. 231 _et seq._\n\n[101] Cf. _Merlin_, ed. Sommer, chap. xxvii. It may be as well here\nto remark that Professor Foerster apparently attributes considerable\nimportance to the pseudo-historical account of Arthur's wars with the\nSaxons contained in the prose romances, notably the Vulgate _Merlin_\n(cf. _Charrette_, p. xcvi., and review of _Legend of Sir Gawain_,\nZeitschrift f\u00fcr Franz. Sp., Band 20, p. 102), asserting that the prose\nromances contain, side by side with the later, the remains of the\noldest stages of Arthurian tradition. To me it seems patent that these\nromances have simply borrowed from the _Chronicles_. There is nothing\nin them which cannot be found in Geoffrey or his translators, and the\nfact that they represent the _romantic_ legend in a demonstrably late\nform, and not in one consonant with the pseudo-historic indications,\nwhile there is no trace of any fundamental revision of the story,\nsuch as might be expected, seems to make it quite clear that they\nare of comparatively late invention. They by no means stand on the\nsame footing as do Wace and Layamon, which are of distinct value in\ndetermining earlier forms of the legend. To take one instance alone,\nthe _Merlin_ gives a long account of the sons of King Lot, who play a\nmost important part in the action of the story, but the genuine early\ntradition gives Gawain no brother save Mordred, and Layamon distinctly\nsays, 'he wes Walwainnes bro\u00f0er, n\u00e6s \u00feer nan o\u00f0er' (ll. 25467-8). The\nexistence of these sons marks a secondary stage in the story; but they\nare in all the _prose_ romances. An exception should perhaps be made in\nfavour of the Didot _Perceval_, which gives the _Mort Artur_ section in\na form differing from the other prose romances and much more closely in\naccord with the _Chronicles_. I shall return to this point later on.\n\n[102] The two accounts should be carefully compared.\n\n[103] Cf. _Parzival_, Book III. l. 937 _et seq._ I unfortunately\nomitted to note the reference in the prose _Lancelot_. The passage is\non p. 127, vol. iii. of M. Paulin Paris's abridged edition.\n\n[104] Cf. _Parzival_, Hertz, n. 66, p. 495.\n\n[105] Cf. _Lais in\u00e9dits_, M. Gaston Paris, _Romania_, vol. viii.\n\n[106] Lancelot's eagerness to receive knighthood should be compared\nwith that of Parzival. Thus Lancelot says to Yvain, 'Dictes a\nmonseigneur le roy qu'il me face chevalier comme il a promis--car ie\nle veuil estres sans attendre plus,'--and again, 'ie ne seray plus\nescuyer.' prose _Lancelot_, ed. 1533, vol. i. Cf. this with _Parzival_,\nBook III. ll. 1001-2, 'nune s\u00fbmet mich nicht m\u00eare phleg m\u00een n\u00e2ch riters\n\u00eare,' and 1158-9, 'i'ne wil niht langer s\u00een ein kneht, ich sol schildes\nambet h\u00e2n.' The correspondence is striking.\n\n[107] 'En verit\u00e9 ce varlet n'est mye bien sage, ou il a este mal\nenseign\u00e9.' Yvain suggests that a woman has forbidden him to tell his\nname (which might be compared with _Parzival_, Book III. l. 1464). By\nhis speech he must be _de Gaulle_. Ed. 1533, vol. i. (The 1533 edition\nhas in each volume a summary of chapter contents, thus reference is\neasy.)\n\n[108] MS. 751, fol. 144 vo., quoted by M. Paulin Paris in vol. iv. of\n_Romans de la Table Ronde_, p. 87.\n\n[109] This _Dame de Nohan_ is probably the same as the _Dame de Noauz_\nmentioned in the _Charrette_, l. 5389.\n\n[110] Cf. _Romania_, vol. xxvi. p. 290.\n\n[111] _Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 65.\n\n[112] M. Marillier in a review of the _Voyage of Bran_ and _Legend of\nSir Gawain_, contained in _Revue des Religions_ (July-August 1899),\nis inclined to connect the adventure of the _Fier Baiser_ ascribed to\nthe son with the adventure of the _Marriage of Sir Gawain_ ascribed to\nthe father. Both are disenchantment stories, and both appear to belong\nto the class of disenchantment by personal contact. The point is an\ninteresting and a suggestive one.\n\n[113] The character of the fairy and the nature of Lancelot's\nupbringing demand a special study, for which, so far, the materials are\nnot available. The Lady of the Lake touches on the one hand the Queen\nof the Other-World, on the other, Morgain la Fee. I understand that a\nstudy on the characters of Lady of the Lake, Vivienne, and Morgain, is\nbeing prepared under the direction of Dr. Schofield. For the details\nof Lancelot's childhood, we must wait till a critical edition of the\nprose _Lancelot_ shows us whether we have any variants or traces of\nearly redactions, to bridge the gulf between the poem of Ulrich van\nZatzikhoven and the final prose romance.\n\n[114] Cf. Introduction to M. Paulin Paris's _Romans de la Table Ronde_,\np. 81 _et seq._, also M. de Villemarqu\u00e9's _Merlin_, p. 121.\n\n[115] Dr. Wechssler's interesting study on '_die verschiedenen\nRedaktionen des Graal-Lancelot Cyklus_' will be referred to later on.\nIt is an excellent statement of certain aspects of the problem, but\nfurther research shows some of his conclusions to be very doubtful. His\njudgment with regard to the _Queste_ variants is certainly at fault.\n\n[116] l. 8050 _et seq._\n\n[117] Cf. Rhys, _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_, chap. iii. The\nauthor remarks that to this day in some parts of Wales it is held an\ninsult, as implying a reflection on her moral character, to call a girl\nGuinevere.\n\n[118] 'Arthur gave in charge all that he had to Mordred and the queen.\nThat was evil done that they were born, for the land they destroyed\nwith sorrows enow. And at the end themselves the Worse (devil) began to\ndestroy that they there forfeited (lost) their lives and their souls,\nand ever since are loathed in every land, that never a man will offer\nprayer for their souls.'\n\n[119] This line is lacking in the oldest MS., but can be supplied from\nthe later recension: 'Man knew not, in sooth, whether she were dead\n(and how she hence departed), whether she herself were sunk in the\nwater.'\n\n[120] The _Merlin_ of course deals with a period anterior to this\n_liaison_, but as we possess it, it has been, as we saw above, redacted\nunder the influence of a tradition of which the amours of Lancelot and\nGuinevere formed an integral part.\n\n[121] Cf. _Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 76 _et seq._\n\n[122] On this point, cf. my _Legend of Sir Gawain_, Mr. Maynadier's\n_Wife of Bath's Tale_ (both in Grimm Library), and M. Marillier's\narticle in _Revue des religions_ (July-August, 1899), already referred\nto.\n\n[123] I have purposely omitted Tristan, as, though a Celtic hero, he is\nonly indirectly connected with Irish tradition.\n\n[124] I am glad to find that M. Gaston Paris evidently holds this\nview, as in a note to his discussion of the tradition that Roland was\nCharlemagne's son as well as his nephew, in the _Histoire Po\u00e9tique de\nCharlemagne_, he refers to Gawain as holding the same position.\n\n[125] The above remarks of course refer to Gawain as connected with\nArthur; originally he was probably independent. As our knowledge stands\nat present, the parallels between Gawain and early Irish tradition\nappear to belong mainly to the _Ultonian_ cycle; while in the case of\nArthur the parallels are rather to the _Ossianic_.\n\n[126] In some versions eighty.\n\n[127] As far as English opinion goes, the popularity of Tennyson's\nversion of the Arthurian tales has operated disastrously in confusing\nthe question. Not long ago a writer contributed to a review an article\non the subject, in which he contended for the essential identity of\nthe _Tristan_ and _Lancelot_ stories, naming among other parallels\nthe fact that in both cases the hero is sent to fetch home his lord's\nbride--an addition due to Tennyson; Lancelot in the genuine story\nbeing unborn at the date of the marriage. As regards the _Idylls_, it\ncan only be said that whereas Malory's juxtaposition of half a dozen\ndifferent compilations made confusion of a subject already more than\nsufficiently complex, Tennyson's edifying rearrangement of Malory\nmade that confusion 'worse confounded.' Malory is highly valuable for\nthe Arthurian legend in his proper place, when critically compared\nwith other versions; and has a separate and independent position as\nan English classic. The _Idylls of the King_ may perhaps also be\nconsidered an English classic, but is _entirely_ outside the range\nof critical Arthurian scholarship, and should _never_ be quoted as\nevidence for the smallest tittle of Arthurian romance.\n\n[128] I am not quite certain on this point. Certainly the _Perceval_\nstory is earlier than we commonly suppose, and I think we may find that\nit had reached the ecclesiastical ascetic stage at quite an early point\nin the evolution of the _Lancelot_ story.\n\n[129] Cf. Wechssler, _\u00dcber die verschiedenen Redaktionen des\nGraal-Lancelot-Cyklus_, p. 17.\n\n[130] _Merlin_, Sommer's ed., chap. xxvi. p. 343; _Perceval_, l. 9546\n_et seq._; _Parzival_, xii. ll. 1306-7, xiii. l. 542 _et seq._; also my\n_Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 75 _et seq._\n\n[131] I have purposely excluded the Melwas-Meleagant story from this\ncomparison. I am not clear that it was, in its origin, a tale of\nconjugal infidelity; it rather appears to me to be a _Pluto-Proserpine_\nabduction tale. The abductor _may_ at one period have been Guinevere's\nlover; but, as we now have it, the queen is the innocent victim of\nviolence. Further, it is evident that the abductor had ceased to be\nthe lover _before_ the introduction of Lancelot into the story (cf.\n_Lanzelet_). Therefore, if originally an infidelity story, we are met\nby the same perplexing gap in the tradition as we find in the Mordred\nversion.\n\n[132] Cf. references under heading 'Gawain.' They are scattered\nthroughout the book.\n\n[133] Cf. _Grand S. Graal_, ed. Hucher, pp. 271 and 289-93.\n\n[134] Dr. Wechssler's caution is quite right, nevertheless I think we\nmay eventually find that Borron was really the author of some sort of a\ncycle.\n\n[135] Dr. Wechssler contends for this, as the correct title, rather\nthan _Grand S. Graal_.\n\n[136] Cf. _supra_, p. 17.\n\n[137] Cf. _supra_, p. 14.\n\n[138] Cf. _supra_, p. 9.\n\n[139] _Die Sage vom Heiligen Gral, in ihrer Entwicklung bis auf Richard\nWagner's Parsifal_: Halle, 1898.\n\n[140] Obviously added by M. Paulin Paris.\n\n[141] On this point I need only refer to M. Gaston Paris, Introduction\nto the Huth _Merlin_, p. viii.\n\n[142] I do not discuss here how far this romance represents the\noriginal Borron-Perceval poem. As it stands, it is certainly not\nBorron's work. The question is, are we to consider it the work of a\nlater writer, or does it represent an early _Perceval_ romance, worked\nover for cyclic purposes?\n\n[143] Some years ago, when preparing my translation of the _Parzival_,\nI found in the _Gesta Comites Andegavorum_ a summary of the closing\nevents of Arthur's life closely agreeing with that of the Didot\n_Perceval_. The connection between Perceval and Angevin tradition has\nnot, in my opinion, received sufficient attention.\n\n[144] We have seen reason to believe that the original _Perceval_ story\ndid early affect the _Lancelot_, and this argument, which we used at\nfirst of the independent, becomes strengthened when we examine the\ncyclic form.\n\n[145] If this be true, it would throw an interesting light on the\nconjunction of the _Queste_ and _Perceval li Gallois_ in the well-known\nWelsh MS. translated by the Rev. R. Williams. The compiler of the MS.\nmay have had versions of the two _Lancelot_ cycles before him and have\ntaken the _Queste_ from each, perhaps doubtful which was the right\nversion.\n\n[146] Hucher, vol. i. p. 421.\n\n[147] Quoted by Professor Heinzel: '_\u00dcber die franz\u00f6sischen\nGralromane_,' p. 177. The parallel passage is on p. 279, vol. ii. of\nDr. Evans' translation, _The High History of the Holy Grail_; but it is\nnot included in the Welsh translation.\n\n[148] Professor Heinzel's study did not come into my hands till the MS.\nof this chapter had been sent to the press. The support afforded to\nmy theory by the above expression of opinion was most welcome to me.\nA point which deserves notice in connection with this romance is the\nappearance in it of the above-named _Briant des Illes_, and the story\nof the death of _Lohot_, King Arthur's son. So far as I know, no other\nprose romance knows either of these characters, but Chr\u00e9tien refers to\nboth in his _Erec_, ll. 6730 and 1732. I think it is possible that the\nname given by Wolfram von Eschenbach to Arthur's son, _Ilinot_, may\nrest upon a misreading of _Lohot_; the story connected with the latter\nis certainly curiously archaic in detail.\n\n[149] I cannot at all agree with Dr. Wechssler's view that the Galahad\n_Queste_ has been largely worked over; on the contrary it has been the\nleast tampered with of all the Arthurian romances. I shall show this\npresently by comparison of texts.\n\n[150] The worst fault of Dr. Wechssler's Grail study is that he\npredicates the distinctive traits of Perceval as being of Galahad--to\nwhom they never in any sense belonged. Galahad is not Perceval's\nunderstudy, much less is he his original: he is an absolutely and\nentirely independent creation. The only quality they have in common is\nthat of virginity, which is not of them, but of the monkish redactors\nof the legend. It is certainly no part of the primitive _Perceval_ tale.\n\n[151] The passage which represents Gawain as admitting himself to be\nthe slayer of eighteen out of the twenty-two knights who have lost\ntheir lives in the _Queste_, Baudemagus, his dearest friend according\nto the _Merlin Suite_, among them, should, I think, be printed at the\nend of the _Queste_, not at the beginning of the _Mort Artur_, where it\nis now generally found. It is entirely in accordance with the tone of\nthe first named romance, and out of keeping with the latter. Moreover,\nboth the Dutch _Lancelot_ and the 1533 version print it in the former\nposition. The compiler of the _Tristan_ has generally been supposed\nto be the first to introduce the vilification of Gawain's character;\nin the light of Dr. Wechssler's suggestion it would be interesting to\nexamine whether this presentment is to be found in the _Tristan before_\nits contamination with the later _Lancelot-Map_ cycle. I think there\nwere peculiarities in the original Gawain story, which, misunderstood\nby later compilers, helped to cast a false light on his character,\nbut it is open to question whether it was the _Tristan_ compiler or\nthe author of the Galahad _Queste_ who was the original propagator of\ncalumny.\n\n[152] The _Queste_ writer dwells upon instances of heroes betrayed\nthrough their love of women--Samson, Solomon, etc. If he had known the\nearlier _Lancelot-Borron_ story, with the instance of Merlin's betrayal\nby the lady who brought up Lancelot, he would surely have made use of\nso very _\u00e0 propos_ an illustration.\n\n[153] I suspect this sword of being the sword of the original Perceval\nstory, for which an edifying legend has been invented. It probably\nbelongs to a very early stage of the tradition. I hope some day to make\nit the subject of special study.\n\n[154] Cf. the Perceval of Chr\u00e9tien, and more especially the Parzival\nof Wolfram, with the hero of the Didot _Perceval_ or _Perceval li\nGallois_. I consider the two first represent the independent, the two\nlatter the cyclic form.\n\n[155] It may be noted here that in Wolfram's version of the _Perceval_\nstory--a version which, as we have seen, has certainly influenced the\n_Lancelot_ legend--the Grail-bearer, Repanse-de-Schoie eventually\nbecomes the mother of Prester John. The circumstance that the details\nof the begetting of Galahad are found in the _Lancelot_, and not in the\n_Queste_, suggests the consideration that the author of this latter\nromance may have worked over the section of the _Lancelot_ in question,\nso as to bring it into superficial accord with his story. Or he _may_\nhave worked in conjunction with one of the later redactors.\n\n[156] Chr\u00e9tien does not appear to know anything about him: in the\n_Charrette_, for instance, had he known Bohort as represented in later\nlegend, he would certainly have made him, and not Gawain, undertake the\nconflict with Meleagant, for which Lancelot threatens to be too late.\nThe role of 'helpful friend,' played by Gawain in the earlier versions\nof the legend, is passed over to Bohort in the later.\n\n[157] On this point cf. what I have said before as to the development\nof the _Chansons de Geste_; p. 92 note.\n\n[158] 1. Edited by Dr. Jonckbloet, 2 vols., 1850, will be referred to\nas =D. L.=\n\n2. Edition in 3 vols., a complete copy is contained in the Douce\ncollection in the Bodleian Library, referred to as =1533=.\n\n3. _Morte Arthur_, edited by Dr. Sommer, vol. iii., _Sources of\nMalory_, the sections entitled _The Lancelot Proper_, _The Quest of the\nHoly Grail_, and _La Morte au Arthur_; all three are referred to as =S.=\n\n4. _Queste del Saint Graal_, ed. Furnivall--=Q.=\n\n5. _Morte Arthur_, Sommer (vol. i. text)--=M.=\n\n6. The Welsh _Queste_ (ed. Rev. R. Williams, 1876), which I have\nalso consulted, being, in its available form, the translation of a\ntranslation, scarcely affords reliable ground for comparison; it is,\nmoreover, a very free rendering of the text. Nevertheless, as it is\nwell to make use of all available versions, I have, in the cases where\nthe original text appears to be fairly represented, added this reading\nunder the heading =W.=\n\n[159] Cf. Jonckbloet, _Roman van Lancelot_, vol. i. p. lvii.\n\n[160] To speak quite correctly it really begins rather before the\n_Agravain_ proper. I have noted this further on. M. Paulin Paris\nremarks (_Romans de la Table Ronde_, vol. v. p. 296), with regard to\nthe _Agravain_, that we find it 'le plus souvent copi\u00e9 isol\u00e9ment, ou\nbien compl\u00e9tement s\u00e9par\u00e9 des autres parties.' One of the useful hints\nof this scholar which might have earlier been taken into consideration.\n\n[161] In this connection it is amusing to find Dr. Wechssler (_Sage\nvom Heiligen Gral_, pp. 166-167) remarking complacently that the\nachievement of the adventures announced by the Grail Messenger '_wird\nnirgends erz\u00e4hlt_.' The Dutch _Lancelot_ has been edited and available\nfor _fifty_ years. I must own that the result of my examination of\nthis, and of the version of 1533, equally available, has been to\nseriously shake my belief in the soundness and reliability of foreign\ncriticisms of the Arthurian cycle. It is quite clear that the material\nat our disposal, limited as it is, has not yet been properly examined.\n\n[162] The romances not being named in the =D. L.=, I have adopted for\nconvenience' sake the names given to them by M. Gaston Paris.\n\n[163] Abstracts of these episodic romances are given by M. Gaston\nParis, in vol. xxx. of _Hist. Litt. de la France_.\n\n[164] Dr. Sommer says, and correctly, that the '_pomier_' must be the\nolder version.\n\n[165] This account of Lancelot being found asleep and carried off by\nthree queens should be compared with that of Renouart found sleeping\nand carried off to Avalon by three 'fays.'\n\nI assume throughout that Dr. Sommer's summary correctly represents his\ntext, but I admit that I have my doubts on this point; certainly in the\n_Queste_ section he gives some most mistaken readings; indeed, apart\nfrom the evidence of =D. L.= and =1533= the whole _Lancelot-Queste_\nsection needs revision. It is unfortunate that some foreign scholars\nhave been so ready to accept Dr. Sommer's statements without taking the\ntrouble to verify them.\n\n[166] I do not think this is a proper name, but the equivalent of\n_Grave_=Count.\n\n[167] No other version mentions, as does =M.=, that the ladies won\ntheir living by 'al maner of sylke werkes,' but the whole story looks\nso like a copy of Yvain's adventure at the Ch\u00e2teau de Pesme Aventure\nthat I think it may have been in his source.\n\n[168] Of course M. Paulin Paris's book, being greatly condensed and\nmodernised, cannot be used for textual criticism; but the compiler\nwas a scholar of very wide learning, and there are numerous notes\nand hints, which we, of a later generation, make a great mistake in\ndisregarding.\n\n[169] This lady, never mentioned by =M.=, plays an important r\u00f4le in\nthe prose _Lancelot_.\n\n[170] Here I take the opportunity of saying that I entirely dissent\nfrom Dr. Sommer's assertion that Gareth is the equivalent of the\nFrench _Guerresches_ rather than _Gaheret_. It is this latter (in the\n=D. L.= _Gari\u00ebtte_) which =M.= renders by Gareth. I have paid a good\ndeal of attention to this question, and have come to the conclusion\nthat, although in the descriptive summary of King Lot's sons, found\nin the _Lancelot_, Guerresches (Gurrehes) is said to be the youngest,\nsave Mordred, and Gawain's favourite, yet the adventures ascribed to\nGaheret (variants, Gaheriet, Gari\u00ebtte, Garhi\u00ebs) throughout mark him as\nthe original of Gareth; a point which etymology alone would, I think,\ndecide in his favour! This much is certain, wherever =M.= and the\nFrench versions can be compared we find Gaheret and _not_ Guerresches.\nWhen Dr. Sommer takes it upon himself, as he does in the quotations\nfrom the French contained in the _Mort Artur_ section, to arbitrarily\nchange the _Gaheret_ of all the foreign versions into _Guerresches_,\nbecause the latter agrees with his preconceived ideas, he is setting\nwhat I must consider as a most undesirable precedent; we cannot take\nthese liberties with the texts and hope to arrive at a satisfactory and\nscientific conclusion. As pointed out in my review of Dr. Wechssler's\nGrail Study, once allow such a substitution, and what is to prevent\nus from a series of editions emendated to suit the personal views\nof each editor? I think myself that Gaheret and Guerresches may\noriginally have been one, but that confusion arose from Mordred being\nsometimes considered as Lot's, sometimes as Arthur's, son, and that a\ntradition of _four_ sons of King Lot having been established early in\nthe evolution of the romantic story, the personality of the third was\ndoubled to make up the correct number. This is only a suggestion, but\nthere is certainly a confusion as to identity in the French versions,\nthough there is no confusion as to the original of =M.=\n\n[171] It seems likely that this was in =M.='s source, as we read that\nthe old man has a spear in his hand, 'and that spere was called the\nspere of vengeaunce.' But the old man never speaks of it to Bors.\n\n[172] As regards the mention of Galahad and Lancelot in =1533=, I find\nI have no special note. They are certainly not in =D. L.= and the two\nversions are in such habitual accord that I think I must have noted it\nhad they differed here. Still, I think it only fair to point out my\nomission.\n\n[173] On p. 200 of the _Studies_ there is a mistake. Dr. Sommer speaks\nof the fight between _Bors_ and Perceval and their healing by the\nGrail. It should, of course, be _Hector_, not _Bors_. We may note here\nthat in this instance the Grail is stated to be the dish out of which\nOur Lord ate the Paschal lamb in the house of Simon the Leper; there is\nno mention of its containing the Blood of Christ, or of its being borne\nby a maiden as in =M.=\n\n[174] There is no mention of Balyn's sword: this is clearly an\ninterpolation of =M.=\n\n[175] This passage throws into strong relief the absolute unreality of\nthe Galahad _Queste_. The hero knows all about the Grail, its keeper,\nwhere it is to be found, his own relation to it. He has grown up\nunder its shadow as it were. Nor need he fulfil any test to gain it:\nin all the records of his adventures there is no temptation such as\nthat undergone by Perceval or Bohort; he is as fit to become keeper\nof the Grail (for this and not Grail-_King_ he practically becomes)\nwhen he leaves Arthur's court as when he finally, after a series of\naimless adventures, arrives at Corbenic. Contrast this with the earlier\nversions: the hero knows nothing of the Grail; not till after he has\nbeheld the Talisman and failed to accomplish the necessary test does he\neven hear the name; when he would make amends for his negligence he can\nno longer find the castle, and not till he has proved himself worthy\nthrough long-continued trial is the opportunity once lost again offered\nto him. Neither do the inhabitants of the Grail Castle know their\ndeliverer; they hope that it may be he, since they believe none other\nmight find the way, but they do not know him, whereas Galahad is well\nknown to the dwellers in Corbenic.\n\n[176] Dr. Sommer's description of the swearing of the questers, on p.\n210 of the _Studies_, is utterly wrong. In every version Arthur calls\non Gawain to swear first, when Baudemagus interposes, saying that he\nwho is to achieve the quest should be the first to swear. Consequently\nGalahad swears first, and is followed by Lancelot, Gawain, Perceval,\nBohort, Lionel and H\u00e9lie le Blank. Baudemagus is in no instance the\nfirst to swear.\n\n[177] Dr. Sommer's summary is again misleading, and entirely\nmisrepresents the general character of the incident.\n\n[178] _Studies_, p. 212.\n\n[179] Cf. Dr. Sommer's remark on p. 212. I cannot recall a single\ninstance in which the equivalents to =M.= give any other reading.\n\n[180] On p. 212, Dr. Sommer states that =Q.= does not, at this point of\nthe story, say what becomes of Perceval. This is wrong; =Q.= distinctly\nsays he leaves Lancelot _to return to the recluse_.\n\n[181] In his summary of the conversation on p. 213, Dr. Sommer again\nmisrepresents his text--_all_ agree in saying that Perceval asks his\naunt about his mother and 'parens,' not that the aunt asks Perceval!\n\n[182] The adventure of Perceval on the rock agrees closely with that of\nMordrain in the _Grand S. Graal_. There also are two ships--in one a\nman who encourages, in the other a woman who tempts, him. In both cases\nthe woman accuses the man of being an enchanter; in both her ship is\ncovered with black silk, and she departs in a tempest. Cf. Hucher, _Le\nS. Graal_, vol. ii. pp. 354, _et seq._\n\n[183] _S. Graal_, ii. p. 444.\n\n[184] As I said before, this _may_ be due to the influence of\n_Morien_, but we must not overlook the fact that this poem certainly\nhas some curious points of contact with the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von\nEschenbach, which also knows of the hero (or more accurately here, his\nson) regaining his kingdom, which he also does in _Perceval li Gallois_.\n\n[185] The scribe of the original MS. may have had to condense on\naccount of space here, which is contrary to the usual practice of\n=1533=; but in a printed edition it is not easy to decide the real\nvalue and significance of such omissions.\n\n[186] =1533= _ten_, representing the number as thirteen, Galahad taking\nthe place of Our Lord. This is a point on which we might expect to find\ndifferent readings, according as the compiler held, or did _not_ hold,\nJudas to have been present at the Institution--a question on which a\ndifference of opinion has always existed.\n\n[187] This is the passage to which I referred in connection with the\nYvain sources, p. 76. This son of King Claudas is, no doubt, the same\nwho played such a valiant part in the war between Lancelot and his\nfather, related at great length in the _Lancelot_.\n\n[188] This arrival of the nine knights at the Grail Castle, and their\nshare in the Grail revelation, is a striking proof of the unreality of\nthe Galahad _Queste_ qu\u00e2 _quest_, on which I have remarked elsewhere.\nWho are these knights? What claim have they to be admitted to a feast\nso holy that even King Pelles and his son are excluded? Practically\nthey are as much achievers of the Quest as Galahad himself. The fact\nis the writer is so taken up with the religious symbolism of the relic\nthat in exaggerating and insisting on symbolic details he loses sight\nof the real point of his story. I very much doubt whether any one but\nthe Grail Winner himself ought to reach, or was ever contemplated\nas reaching, the Grail Castle, much less be witness of the full\nexplanation of the relic. To this it may be objected that Gawain\nreaches it; but Gawain was certainly at one time looked upon as the\nGrail Winner, and I believe it is only in this character that he ever\nfound the castle. The accessibility of Corbenic is a _very_ weak point\nof the Galahad _Queste_.\n\n[189] I cannot agree with M. Gaston Paris's suggestion that this\npassage, which he takes as part of the _Mort Artur_, refers to an\nearlier _Queste_ redaction. A _Queste_ giving a full account of the\nfate of so many of the knights engaged would be of portentous length,\nand there is absolutely no sign of this Galahad _Queste_ having existed\nin another form. I regard it as a summing up, by the author, of the\ngeneral results of the expedition, a _postscriptum_ which enabled him\nto have a final fling at his _b\u00eate-noire_ Gawain. The addition of\nBaudemagus's name may have been his work, or that of a copyist, and\ndesigned to give point to his accusation. Whether the tradition that he\nshould be killed by Gawain arose from this passage, or was incorporated\nin the _Merlin_ from another source we cannot say. The Baudemagus\ntradition demands study. In the _Merlin_ he is represented as but\nsix years older than Gawain, whose dearest friend he is, but in the\n_Charrette_ he appears as quite an old man, whose son, Meleagant, is\nthe contemporary of Gawain and Lancelot; while in the prose _Lancelot_\nand _Queste_ he appears as the devoted friend of the family of King\nBan, sharing the adventures of these young knights on an equal footing.\nThe whole presentment is hopelessly confused. The frequent reference\nto the Arthurian records, as kept in the 'almeryes' at Salisbury,\nappears to me to be a parallel case to the allusions in the Charlemagne\nRomances to the records at S. Denys. I suspect there is as much, or as\nlittle, truth in the one ascription as in the other.\n\n[190] Cf. _Studies_, p. 214. Dr. Sommer uses as an argument for this\nthe difference of spelling in the name of _Corbenic_, but this proves\nnothing. =D. L.= has at least four ways of spelling this word, and\nsometimes a variant occurs in the space of a few lines. The general\ncharacter of the name is always preserved, and in MSS. that have been\nfrequently copied, to say nothing of printed, the substitution of one\nletter for another is too frequent to call for remark.\n\n[191] Dr. Wechssler in his _Lancelot_ study announces solemnly, '_So\nviel aber steht f\u00fcr uns fest, dass Malorys Quelle f\u00fcr sein sechstes\nBuch nicht die Branche eines Cyklus, sondern ein selbst\u00e4ndiges\nOriginalwerk gewesen ist_' (_Gral-Lancelot_, p. 35). But we now see it\nwas beyond any doubt part of a cyclic work.\n\n[192] Cf. Appendix, p. 237.\n\n[193] I take this opportunity of strongly protesting against the\ntone assumed by Professor Foerster on the question of Malory. He has\nnot himself examined the question of the sources, but has simply\naccepted all Dr. Sommer's far too hasty and inadequately founded\nconclusions. When he says, on p. lxv. of the _Charrette_, '_Der\n\u00fcberall seine Quellen und zwar nur seine Quellen und obendrein noch\ntreu wiedergebende Malory ist ein Phantasiegesch\u00f6pf der Walliser und\nEngl\u00e4nder_,' he is simply dogmatising in an unwarrantable manner on a\nquestion with regard to which he has no _locus standi_. Exaggerated as\nthe statement is, and is meant to be, it is infinitely nearer the truth\nthan are many of Professor Foerster's own hypotheses.\n\n[194] Cf. Appendix, p. 241.\n\n[195] The passage quoted by Dr. Wechssler (_Gral-Lancelot_, p. 60,\n_et seq._), and which he considers belongs to an earlier version of\nthe _Queste_, is manifestly only a condensed variant of the ordinary\n_Queste_ into which an allusion to Tristan and Pallamedes has been\nclumsily introduced.\n\n[196] This seems to point to the fact that the _Agravain_ section of\nthe _Lancelot_ is that which offers the most important variants, and\nis the most likely to reward the careful critic. The final section is\npractically based upon a romance foreign to the original _Lancelot_\nstory, and which has been incorporated into it; consequently we may\nexpect to find all the versions in pretty general agreement as regards\nthe _Mort Artur_ proper.\n\n[197] Cf. _Studies_, p. 220.\n\n[198] Cf. Appendix, p. 237.\n\n[199] Referred to in future as =M. A.=\n\n[200] As I have said before, there can be no doubt which of the two\nis the prototype of Gareth; also, subsequent study has shown me that,\noutside the _Lancelot_ proper and the romances which have been modified\nfor cyclic purposes, we rarely find any mention of Guerresches, whereas\nwe often meet with Gari\u00ebt. I am strongly of opinion that originally the\ntwo characters were one, and that in that earlier form the knight was\nGaheriet or Gari\u00ebt.\n\n[201] _Studies_, p. 254.\n\n[202] Throughout this section it must be borne in mind that =S.=\nsystematically replaces the _Guerresches_ of his text by _Gaheriet_.\nThis latter sides throughout with Gawain.\n\n[203] It is of course possible that a negative may have dropped out\nhere.\n\n[204] On p. 260, Dr. Sommer makes a strange mistake. We are told that\nBohort fights against Ywain; to this Dr. Sommer appends a note of\nexclamation, and a footnote to the effect that Ywain has already been\nkilled by Gawain, as related in the _Queste_. Of course it was not\nthe '_Chevalier au Lion_,' but his bastard half-brother, '_Yvain li\navoutres_,' who was slain on that occasion. The text of =Q.= is quite\nclear.\n\n[205] On p. 261, Dr. Sommer again falls into a curious error of\nidentity. We are told that King Karados assists at the council between\nArthur, Lancelot, and Gawain, when the fight is determined upon. Dr.\nSommer reminds us in a note that Karados had been previously slain\nby Lancelot! That was, of course, the giant of that name, brother\nto Turquine; _this_ is the famous Karados '_Brief-bras_,' sometimes\nregarded as Arthur's nephew. Dr. Sommer's apparent lack of familiarity\nwith the minor characters of the Arthurian cycle is inexplicable.\n\n[206] On p. 263 the parallel passages quoted from =M.= and the English\n=M. A.= make mention of _Baudemagus_ as one of Lancelot's councillors,\nwhereas at the end of the _Queste_ his death at the hand of Gawain is\nrecorded. Cf. this with my remarks on the Baudemagus legend, p. 184. I\ndo not think this story of his death was a genuine part of the cyclic\n_Lancelot_, but belonged to another line of tradition known to the\nauthor of =Q.= from the Merlin _Suite_, and unintelligently quoted by\nhim. This, which is a real discrepancy, as there is but one Baudemagus,\nDr. Sommer does not remark upon!\n\n[207] Cf. chap. i. p. 5.\n\n[208] (_a_) chap. ii., the _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven;\n(_b_) chaps. iii. and iv., _Le cerf au pied blanc, Le Chevalier de la\nCharrette_; (_c_) chaps. vi., vii., and viii., the prose _Lancelot_.\n\n[209] Cf. chap. vii., _The loves of Lancelot and Guinevere_.\n\n[210] Cf. pp. 97, 124, 129.\n\n[211] I do not here intend to imply any opinion as to the _original_\nnature of the Grail, only to refer to the undoubted fact that _as\nconnected with Perceval_ it is more or less religious in character.\n\n[212] Dr. Sommer's study on Malory is a case in point. It is a work\nof great extent, carried out with the most painstaking perseverance,\nyet because he omitted to consult such accessible texts as the Dutch\ntranslation and the Bodleian _Lancelot_, and assumed the general\nunanimity of the printed versions, a very important section of his work\nis largely deprived of value, and urgently requires revision.\n\n[213] The parallel with the edition of 1533 begins vol. ii. fo. xxxix.;\nwith the abstract of M. Paulin Paris, vol. v. chap. cxxii. That is,\nsomewhat earlier than the beginning of the _Agravain_ section proper.\n\n[214] Is this perhaps the Sir Marrok of the were-wolf story?--=M.=,\nBook XIX. chap. ix.; also vol. iii. of _Arthurian Romances\nUnrepresented in Malory_.\n\n[215] =D. L.= always has the form _Walewein_.\n\n[216] This name is spelt _Hestore_ throughout. On the whole the\nspelling of proper names in =D. L.= is very erratic, and varies greatly.\n\n[217] This adventure of the Perilous Cemetery is one of the\n'cross-references' to which I have referred earlier. It is mentioned\nboth in _G. S. Graal_ and _Queste_. The wording here is not very\nclear, but it does not, I think, mean that Lancelot has already failed\nin the Grail adventure, but that he shall come to the cemetery after\nhe _has_ failed; which is fulfilled in _Queste_. At the same time we\nmust remember that in _Perceval li Gallois_, which knows nothing of\nGalahad or the _Queste_, Lancelot fails for the same reason, and more\ncompletely, as the Grail does not appear at all in his presence, so\nthis _may_ refer to the earlier story.\n\n[218] It may be noted that Chr\u00e9tien knows nothing of a dove connected\nwith the Grail, whereas Wolfram does.\n\n[219] I have before remarked on the uncertain spelling of this name in\n=D. L.=, the above is the more usual form.\n\n[220] From this it appears that Gawain's failure at the Grail castle\nwas in no way due to any defect of _character_, but to his omission\nof the reverence due to the Grail, of the sacrosanct nature of which\nhe was ignorant. This explanation appears to me to be peculiar to the\n_Lancelot_ version, which otherwise, as I have pointed out, regards\nGawain with great respect.\n\n[221] Certain details in this adventure recall that of the 'Joie de la\ncourt' in _Erec_.\n\n[222] I think this is probably the explanation of A.'s vision, when\nhe sees G. after death surrounded by the souls of poor men 'who have\nhelped G. to conquer the heavenly kingdom.' Cf. Sommer, _Studies_, p.\n266.\n\n[223] These passages illustrate the difficulty previously referred to,\nof identifying the original of Gareth. I believe it can only be done by\ncomparing the parallel adventures in =M=. and his source.\n\n[224] In the account of the final battle all versions I have consulted\ngive one hundred thousand on each side killed; the above is much more\nreasonable.\n\n[225] There is a _lacuna_ of a few lines here in =D. L.=, so this may\nwell have been in the text.\n\n[226] This adventure of Ywein and the giant's shield should be compared\nwith _Meraugis de Portlesguez_, ll. 1418 _et seq._ There lady has taken\ndwarf's horse; and it is the eye, not the hand, which the messenger\nloses. I believe the above to be the older version, as, though\nL'Outredotez is always spoken of as a knight simply, Meraugis once\nrefers to him as a _giant_, which must have come from another version.\n\n[227] This appears to be a reminiscence of Merlin and Vivienne. Cf.\n_Merlin_, Sommer's ed., chap. xix.\n\n[228] Cf. this with _Studies_, p. 186; also remarks, _supra_, p. 153.\n\n[229] It is quite possible that we have here the story of Urre of\nHungary, which may well have been given at greater length in one of\nthe _Lancelot_ MSS. Also the source of Malory's version of Lancelot\nbeing wounded by a maiden, Book XVIII. chap. xxii., where the prose\n_Lancelot_ gives one of his squires.\n\n[230] M. Paulin Paris omits this adventure in his summary, which only\nrecords the _Lancelot_ sections. It is thus apparently lacking in the\nMS. used.\n\n[231] This is one of the adventures referred to previously, cf. pp.\n137-139, _Grand S. Graal_, vol. iii. p. 303 _et seq._ It is worth\nnoting that it is only in the passages parallel to _Grand S. Graal_\nthat L.'s relations with queen are spoken of as sinful.\n\n[232] This does not fit in with indications of story, which would place\nGalahad's birth considerably earlier, L.'s visit to Corbenic being some\ntwo or three years previous.\n\n[233] All this section of Lancelot's adventures, from his meeting with\nSarras of Logres, differs very much from M. Paulin Paris's summary. Cf.\n_Romans de la Table Ronde_, v. p. 322 _seq._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's Notes\n\n  Obvious typographical errors have been corrected, but other variations\n  in spelling, punctuation, and the use of accents have been retained,\n  except where in conflict with the index.\n\n  Italics are shown thus _italic_ and bold thus =bold=. The long s is\n  represented by (s). The Old English letter yogh is represented by [gh].\n\n  A vertical elliptical symbol on page 174 (Chapter 5) is represented\n  thus ().\n\n  A missing \"the\" was added in Chapter 5: \"In these last instances the\n  story may well have been in the _Lancelot_, and taken over by \"the\"\n  compiler of _Grand S. Graal_; the _Queste_ makes very little of them;\n  they only serve to keep up the connection between the 'secular' and\n  'religious' sections.\"","title":"The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac: Studies upon its Origin, Development, and Position in the Arthurian Romantic Cycle","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":79821}