{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_46636/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_46636","id":"gutenberg_46636","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46636","summary":null,"tags":["Arthurian romances -- History and criticism","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Knights and knighthood in literature","Lancelot (Legendary character) -- Romances -- History and criticism","Tournaments, Medieval in literature"],"text":"_Grimm Library_\n\n                                 No. 15\n\n                       THE THREE DAYS\u2019 TOURNAMENT\n      (_Appendix to No. 12, \u2018The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac\u2019_)\n\n\n\n\n                          _The Grimm Library._\n                       (_Crown 8vo. Net Prices._)\n\n  I. GEORGIAN FOLK-TALES. Translated by Marjory Wardrop. _Cr. 8vo, pp._\n          xii + 175. 5_s._\n  II., III., V. THE LEGEND OF PERSEUS. By Edwin Sidney Hartland, F.S.A.\n          3 vols. \u00a31, 7_s._ 6_d._\n    Vol. I. THE SUPERNATURAL BIRTH. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xxxiv + 228 (_not\n          sold separately_).\n    Vol. II. THE LIFE-TOKEN. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ viii + 445. 12_s._ 6_d._\n    Vol. III. ANDROMEDA. MEDUSA. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xxxvii + 225. 7_s._\n          6_d._\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    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._\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._\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\u2019s \u2018Parzival.\u2019 _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xiv + 111. 4_s._\n  VIII. THE CUCHULLIN SAGA IN IRISH LITERATURE. Being a Collection of\n          Stories relating to the Hero Cuchullin, translated from the\n          Irish by various Scholars. Compiled and Edited, with\n          Introduction and Notes, by Eleanor Hull. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ lxxix\n          + 316. 7_s._ 6_d._\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. I., _pp._ xxiv + 363. II., _pp._ xiii + 400. \u00a31,\n          1_s._\n  XI. THE HOME OF THE EDDIC POEMS. With Especial Reference to the \u2018Helgi\n          Lays,\u2019 by Sophus Bugge, Professor in the University of\n          Christiania. Revised Edition, with a new Introduction\n          concerning Old Norse Mythology. Translated from the Norwegian\n          by William Henry Schofield, Instructor in Harvard University.\n          _Cr. 8vo, pp._ lxxix + 408. 12_s._ 6_d._\n  XII. THE LEGEND OF SIR LANCELOT DU LAC. Studies upon its Origin,\n          Development, and Position in the Arthurian Romantic Cycle. By\n          Jessie L. Weston. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xii + 252. 7_s._ 6_d._\n  XIII. THE WIFE OF BATH\u2019S TALE. Its Sources and Analogues. By C. F.\n          Maynadier. _Pp._ xii + 222. 6_s._\n  XIV. SOHRAB AND RUSTEM. The Epic Theme of a Combat between Father and\n          Son. A Study of its Genesis and Use in Literature and Popular\n          Tradition. By Murray Anthony Potter, A.M. _Pp._ xii + 235.\n          6_s._\n\n                         _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\n                                  THE\n                         Three Days\u2019 Tournament\n\n\n                    A Study in Romance and Folk-Lore\n\n      _Being an Appendix to the Author\u2019s \u2018Legend of Sir Lancelot\u2019_\n\n                                   By\n                            Jessie L. Weston\n            AUTHOR OF \u2018THE LEGEND OF SIR GAWAIN\u2019 ETC., ETC.\n\n\n                                 London\n                        Published by David Nutt\n                       At the Sign of the Ph\u0153nix\n                               Long Acre\n                                  1902\n\n               Edinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nThe Study comprised in the following pages should, as the title\nindicates, be regarded as an Appendix to the Studies on the Lancelot\nLegend previously published in the Grimm Library Series. As will be\nseen, they not only deal with an adventure ascribed to that hero, but\nalso provide additional arguments in support of the theory of romantic\nevolution there set forth. Should the earlier volume ever attain to the\nhonour of a second edition, it will probably be found well to include\nthis Study in the form of an additional chapter; but serious students of\nArthurian romance are unfortunately not so large a body that the speedy\nexhaustion of an edition of any work dealing with the subject can be\nlooked for, and, therefore, as the facts elucidated in the following\npages are of considerable interest and importance to all concerned in\nthe difficult task of investigating the sources of the Arthurian legend,\nit has been thought well to publish them without delay in their present\nform.\n\nIn the course of this Study I have, as opportunity afforded, expressed\nopinions on certain points upon which Arthurian scholars are at issue.\nHere in these few introductory words I should like, if possible, to make\nclear my own position with regard to the question of Arthurian criticism\nas a whole. I shall probably be deemed presumptuous when I say that, so\nfar, I very much doubt whether we have any one clearly ascertained and\nestablished fact that will serve as a definite and solid basis for the\nconstruction of a working hypothesis as to the origin and development of\nthis immense body of romance. We all of us have taken, and are taking,\nfar too much for granted. We have but very few thoroughly reliable\ncritical editions, based upon a comparative study of all the extant\nmanuscripts. Failing a more general existence of such critical editions,\nit appears impossible to hope with any prospect of success to \u2018place\u2019\nthe various romances.[1]\n\nFurther, it may be doubted if the true conditions of the problem, or\nproblems, involved have even yet been adequately realised. The Arthurian\ncycle is not based, as is the Charlemagne cycle, upon a solid substratum\nof fact, which though modified for literary purposes is yet more or less\ncapable of identification and rectification; such basis of historic fact\nas exists is extremely small, and for critical purposes may practically\nbe restricted to certain definite borrowings from the early chronicles.\n\nThe great body of Arthurian romance took shape and form in the minds of\na people reminiscent of past, hopeful of future, glory, who interwove\nwith their dreams of the past, and their hopes for the future, the\ncurrent beliefs of the present. To thoroughly understand, and to be able\nintelligently and helpfully to criticise the Arthurian Legend, it is\nessential that we do not allow ourselves to be led astray by what we may\ncall the \u2018accidents\u2019 of the problem\u2014the moulding into literary shape\nunder French influence\u2014but rather fix our attention upon the\n\u2018essentials\u2019\u2014the radically Celtic and folk-lore character of the\nmaterial of which it is composed.\n\nWe need, as it were, to place ourselves _en rapport_ with the mind alike\nof the conquered and the conquerors. It is not easy to shake ourselves\nfree from the traditions and methods of mere textual criticism and treat\na question, which is after all more or less a question of scholarship,\non a wider basis than such questions usually demand. Yet, unless I am\nmuch mistaken, this adherence to traditional methods, and consequent\nconfusion between what is essential and what merely accidental, has\noperated disastrously in retarding the progress of Arthurian criticism;\nbecause we have failed to realise the true character of the material\ninvolved, we have fallen into the error of criticising Arthurian romance\nas if its beginnings synchronised more or less exactly with its\nappearance in literary form. A more scientific method will, I believe,\nbefore long force us to the conclusion that the majority of the stories\nexisted in a fully developed, coherent, and what we may fairly call a\nromantic form for a considerable period before they found literary\nshape. We shall also, probably, find that in their gradual development\nthey owed infinitely less to independent and individual imagination than\nthey did to borrowings from that inexhaustible stock of tales in which\nall peoples of the world appear to have a common share.\n\nThus I believe that the first two lessons which the student of Arthurian\nromance should take to heart are (_a_) the extreme paucity of any\ndefinite critical result, (_b_) the extreme antiquity of much of the\nmaterial with which we are dealing.\n\nBut there is also a third point as yet insufficiently realised\u2014the\nhistoric factors of the problem. We hear a great deal of the undying\nhatred which is supposed to have existed between the Britons and their\nSaxon conquerors; the historical facts, such as they are, have been\nworked for all they are worth in the interests of a particular school of\ncriticism; but so far attention has been but little directed to a series\nof at least equally remarkable historic facts\u2014the deliberate attempts\nmade to conciliate the conquered Britons by a dexterous political use of\ntheir national beliefs and aspirations.\n\nIn 1894, when publishing my first essay in Arthurian criticism, the\ntranslation of Wolfram von Eschenbach\u2019s _Parzival_, I drew attention to\nthe very curious Angevin allusions of that poem, and the definite\nparallels to be traced between the incidents of the story and those\nrecorded in the genuine Angevin Chronicles. I then hazarded the\nsuggestion that many of the peculiarities of this version might be\naccounted for by a desire on the part of the author to compliment the\nmost noted prince of that house by drawing a parallel between the\nfortunes of Perceval and his mother, Herzeleide, and those of Henry of\nAnjou and his mother, the Empress Maude. Subsequent study has only\nconfirmed the opinion then tentatively expressed; and I cannot but feel\nstrongly that the average method of criticism, which contents itself\nmerely with discussion of those portions of Wolfram\u2019s poem which\ncorrespond to other versions of the _Perceval_ story, while it neglects\nthose sections (_i.e._ the Angevin allusions and the Grail \u2018Templars\u2019)\nto which no parallel can be found elsewhere, is a method which entirely\ndefeats its own object, and one from which only partial results can be\nobtained.\n\nFor critical purposes, and for determining certain central problems of\nthe location and growth of the Arthurian Legend in literary form, I\ndoubt whether the _Parzival_ be not the most important extant text of\nthe entire cycle: once realise\u2014as if we thoroughly understand the\nhistoric conditions of the time we can scarcely fail to realise\u2014that\nthose two first introductory books could not possibly be written at the\ndate of the composition of the German poem, and we shall then begin to\nrecognise the extreme importance of discovering the when, where, and why\nof their original composition. Could we solve the riddle of the date and\nauthorship of the earlier poem, that containing the Angevin allusions,\nthe Grail Temple with its knights, and, we may add, the numerous\nOriental references, we should, I believe, hold in our hand the\nmaster-key which would unlock the main problems confronting us. In all\nprobability that unlocking when it comes will furnish us with more than\none surprise.\n\nThe Arthurian problem is one which appeals not only to the literary\ncritic but also to the historian. Have we not in the past been tempted\nto regard it too exclusively as the property of the one, and to hold\nthat a British chieftain of whose name and exploits such scanty record\nsurvives can scarcely be a worthy subject of serious historic research?\nBut if the study of history fails to elucidate much concerning the\npersonality and feats of Arthur, it may yet discover much with regard to\nthe growth and development of his legend.\n\nThe Arthurian cycle, both in literary value and in intrinsic interest,\nforms undoubtedly the most important group in Medi\u00e6val literature. Is it\nnot a reproach to scholars that to-day, at the beginning of the\ntwentieth century, there should be such an utter lack of knowledge of\nthe proper order and relation of the members of that group? The most\nbrilliant Arthurian scholars can offer us no more than an accurate\nacquaintance with certain texts, and, perhaps, an hypothesis as to their\nrelative order. The result is that a period extending over some fifty\nyears or more of unusual literary activity, and far-reaching influence,\nlies at present outside the area of scientific knowledge, and is, for\nteaching purposes, practically non-existent. We cannot write the history\nof Arthurian literature, we cannot teach or lecture with confidence upon\nany portion of it, until a more determined and systematic attempt at\nunravelling its many puzzles be made.\n\nIs it not time to seriously consider the desirability of co-ordinating\nthe labours of individual scholars? At present each works, as Hal o\u2019 the\nWynd fought, for his own hand, and it is only by a happy chance that the\nwork of one supplements and supports that of another. Is not the time\nripe for the formation of an International Society, composed of those\nstudents, in France, Germany, America and England, who are sincerely\ninterested in the elucidation of this important section of Medi\u00e6val\nliterature, and who, working on an organised and predetermined plan,\nshall co-operate towards rendering possible the compilation of a really\naccurate and scientific history of the Arthurian cycle? Those who took a\nshare, however small, in such a work would at least have the\nsatisfaction of knowing that they were contributing, not to the\nephemeral curiosity or pleasure of the passing moment, but to the\nenduring profit and permanent intellectual wealth of the world.\n\n  Dulwich, _September 1902_.\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n  PAGE\n  The Evidence of the Ipomedon,                                      1-14\n  The Tournament in Clig\u00e9s,                                         14-21\n  The Tournament in Folk-Tale,                                      21-34\n  The Tournament in Romance,                                        34-43\n  The Bearing on the Lancelot Story,                                43-51\n  Evidence for an Insular Version of the Romance,                   51-59\n\n\n\n\n                       THE THREE DAYS\u2019 TOURNAMENT\n\n\n\n\n                                   I\n\n\n  _Sul ne sai pas de mentir lart_\n  _Walter Map reset ben sa part._\n                                          _Ipomedon_, fo. 82, ll. 29-30.\n\nThese words of the author of the _Ipomedon_ were, some years ago,\ncommented upon by Mr. Ward in his valuable _Catalogue of Romances in the\nBritish Museum_, vol. i. He there remarks that the allusion is\nespecially valuable as being the direct ascription, by a contemporary,\nof the character of romance-writer to Walter Map, and that in apparent\nconnection with the romance most persistently attributed to him\u2014the\n_Prose Lancelot_.\n\nThe suggestive remarks of Mr. Ward do not appear hitherto to have\nattracted the attention they deserve. Recently, having occasion to write\na brief notice of Walter Map, they came, for the first time, under my\nnotice, and, taken in connection with certain points of the _Lancelot_\nstudy in which I had for some time been engaged, assumed an unexpected\nimportance. It became evident to me that the whole question of the\nconnection of the _Ipomedon_ with Arthurian literature, and the light\nwhich the words of the author might throw upon the relation to each\nother of different forms of the same story, was well worth study; and\nmight eventually be of material assistance in determining the much\ndebated question of the position of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes in the Arthurian\ncycle.\n\nIn the following pages I propose to examine, first, the exact nature and\nvalue of the evidence of the _Ipomedon_ as regards Arthurian tradition;\nsecond, its bearing upon the versions of a popular incident in\nromance\u2014the appearance of a knight at a tournament on three consecutive\ndays, in the disguise of three different suits of armour\u2014especially with\nrelation to the versions of the _Prose Lancelot_, the _Lanzelet_ of\nUlrich von Zatzikhoven, and the _Clig\u00e9s_ of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes.\n\nTo begin with the _Ipomedon_. As is probably known to most scholars, the\nscene of this story is laid in the south of Europe\u2014Sicily, Calabria,\nApulia\u2014and the names of the characters are largely borrowed from\nclassical sources. The poem relates at considerable length the wooing of\nthe Princess of Calabria, known as _La Fi\u00e8re_, by Ipomedon, son of the\nKing of Apulia. (In the second part of the poem the hero\u2019s father is\ndead, and he is, himself, king.) The lady has made a vow to wed none but\nthe bravest of knights. Ipomedon, disguised as her cup-bearer, wins her\nlove, and at a three days\u2019 tournament, in a varying armour of white,\nred, and black, wins her hand, but disappears without claiming it, under\nthe pretext that he has not won sufficient fame to satisfy her pride. In\nthe second part of the poem the lady is threatened by an unwelcome\nsuitor, in the person of a hideous giant. Ipomedon, aware of her plight,\ndisguises himself as a fool, and goes to her uncle\u2019s court, knowing that\nshe will send thither for aid. He demands from the king the gift of the\nfirst combat that shall offer, which is granted as a mere joke. On the\nappearance of the messenger sent by _La Fi\u00e8re_\u2014the favourite friend of\nthe princess\u2014Ipomedon claims the fulfilment of the king\u2019s pledge, much\nto the disgust of the maiden, who will have nothing to do with him at\nfirst, but whose confidence he wins by his valiant deeds on the journey,\ndefeats and slays the giant; and hindered from evasion by her gallant\ncousin, who proves to be his own unknown brother, finally marries _La\nFi\u00e8re_, and, we learn, is eventually slain with his brother before\nThebes.\n\nThe author of this poem calls himself Hue de Rotelande, and says that he\nlives at Credehulle, which Mr. Ward identifies with Credenhill, near\nHereford. After completing the _Ipomedon_ he wrote a sequel,\n_Prothesilaus_, which he dedicated to his patron, Gilbert Fitz-Baderon,\nLord of Monmouth. This Gilbert, the only one of his family so named, was\nLord of Monmouth certainly from 1176 to 1190-91, and may have succeeded\nto the dignity earlier, as the last mention of his father is in 1165-66;\nbut the payment by Gilbert of a fine for trespassing in the royal\nforests in 1176 is the first mention we have of him. As in the\n_Ipomedon_ Hue refers to the siege of Rouen in 1174, it is clear that\nboth his poems fall between that date and 1190, the year of Gilbert\u2019s\ndeath, but we cannot date them more exactly.[2] It is, however, certain\nthat he wrote his poems on English ground, consequently it follows as a\nmatter of course that any incident of Arthurian romances to which he may\nallude must have been known in England at that date.\n\nNow what are the indications of familiarity with Arthurian tradition\nwhich we find in the _Ipomedon_? Setting aside for the present the Three\nDays\u2019 Tournament, the main subject of our study, we may point out\ncertain other incidents which have attracted the attention of scholars.\nProfessor K\u00f6lbing,[3] in his study of the English versions of the poem,\nremarks justly that every reader must be struck with the close\nresemblance between the circumstances under which, in the second part of\nthe poem, Ipomedon undertakes the defence of _La Fi\u00e8re_ and the opening\nof the _Bel Inconnu_ poems.[4] It may be pointed out that while in the\nfirst instance the parallel is with the English rather than with the\nFrench version, _i.e._, Ipomedon, like Libeaus Desconus, demands the\n_first combat_ that shall offer, while Bel Inconnu simply asks that the\nfirst request he shall make be granted, the feature that the maiden\nleaves the court without waiting for her unwelcome defender agrees with\nthe French rather than with the English version: in the latter both\ndepart together. As in all romances of the _Bel Inconnu_ cycle, the\nmessenger is accompanied by a dwarf, who endeavours to induce a more\ngentle treatment of the knight, and as in all she continues to flout the\nhero till confuted by his deeds of valour. In the _Ipomedon_, certainly\nthe conversion is more complete, as she offers the hero her love, if he\nwill renounce the quest and accompany her to her own land. It is\nimpossible to read the _Ipomedon_ and to doubt that the author was\nfamiliar with the story of Gawain\u2019s unnamed son.[5]\n\nAgain, the seneschal of King Meleager, Cananeus, Caymys, or Kaenius, as\nhis name is variously spelt, with his sharp tongue and overbearing\nmanner, is strongly reminiscent of Sir Kay; and the parallel is further\nbrought out in the encounter with Ipomedon, where that hero thrusts him\nfrom his steed, \u2018_tope over tayle_,\u2019 breaking in one version his\nshoulder-blade, in another his arm.[6] This should be compared with\nLanzelet\u2019s joust with Kay, and its result \u2018_er stach hern Keiin so das\nim die f\u00fceze harte h\u00f4 \u00fbf ze berge kaften und dem zalehaften daz houbet\ngein der erde fuor_;[7] also with _Morien_,[8] where Arthur reminds Kay\nof the result of his joust with Perceval\u2014\u2018_Hine stac u dat u wel sceen\ndat gi braect u canefbeen, ende dede u oec met onneren beide die vote\nopwerd keren_.\u2019\n\nProfessor K\u00f6lbing also points out that the position held by Cabaneus,\nnephew of King Meleager, is analogous to that of Gawain, in the\nArthurian cycle (to which I would also add that the name of _La Fi\u00e8re_\nrecalls that of _L\u2019Orgueilleuse de Logres_ in Chr\u00e9tien), and decides\nthat the romance, as a whole, \u2018_schliesst sich nach tendenz\ncharacterzeichnung und handlung diese klasse (i.e. dem artus-kreise)\nunverkennbar an_.\u2019[9] That is, the _genre_ of composition was by 1174-90\nso well established that it was freely imitated in romances entirely\nunconnected with the cycle by subject-matter.\n\nWhen, therefore, in direct connection with an adventure of which several\nversions are preserved in the Arthurian cycle\u2014the Three Days\u2019\nTournament\u2014we find the author of the poem excusing himself for somewhat\nembroidering his tale, and quoting Walter Map as one who practises the\nsame art, our minds naturally turn to the romances of that cycle, and to\nMap\u2019s reputed connection with Arthurian story.\n\nAs is well known, the question as to the share which may rightly be\nassigned to Walter Map in the evolution of the Arthurian legend is one\nof the problems of modern criticism. At one time or another, with the\nexception of the _Merlin_ and the _Tristan_, all the great prose\nromances of the cycle, the _Lancelot_, in its completed form, the _Grand\nS. Graal_, _Queste_, and _Mort Artur_, have been assigned to him,[10]\nand till quite recently writers on early English literature did not\nscruple to accept the tradition. Probably even to-day the majority would\nname Walter Map as the populariser, if not the inventor, of the Grail\nlegend. Those, however, who are familiar at first hand with the romances\nin question have long since realised that in their present form they\nrepresent the result of a long period of accretion, and have undergone\nmany redactions; they cannot possibly, as they now stand, be held to be\nthe work of any one writer, certainly not of one who took so active and\nleading a part in public affairs as did Map. Further, his own statement,\nin the famous words recorded by Giraldus Cambrensis, to whom they were\naddressed, \u2018_Multa_ _scripsistis et multum adhuc scribitis et nos multa\ndiximus. Vos scripta dedistis et nos verba_,\u2019 with the application that\nfollows, have been held by Professor Birch-Hirschfeld and other scholars\nto be a direct denial on his part of any literary activity.[11] At the\nsame time we know Map did write, and was interested in romantic and\npopular tales, further that he had the reputation of being a poet,[12]\nand the persistence of the tradition connecting him with the Arthurian\ncycle can hardly be set aside. The question is, do these words of Hue de\nRotelande throw any light upon this disputed point? Can we hope by the\naid of this contemporary of Map\u2019s to arrive at a conclusion which may\nassist us in determining the real nature of his contribution to the\ndevelopment of this famous cycle, and will the ascertaining of this fact\nhelp us, as the definite establishment of a single fact often does, to\nsolve other problems closely connected therewith? Mr. Ward, when he\nwrote the article to which I have referred above, expressed a decided\nopinion on this point; and it appears to me that by following up the\nlines of research there indicated we shall attain results far more\nimportant in themselves, and far more startling in their ultimate effect\nthan he then suspected.\n\nFirst, let us see exactly what Hue says. The passage in question (which\nwill not be found in the translations) occurs at the end of the first\nportion of the poem. The author has just been relating how his hero, who\nis living at King Meleager\u2019s court, in the assumed character of\nbody-servant to the queen, scouts the idea of attending the tournament\nwhich is to decide who shall wed _La Fi\u00e8re_ of Calabria, loudly\nexpressing his preference for the pleasures of the chase. Each morning\nhe leaves the court before daylight, announcing his departure by loud\nblasts of the horn; but having reached the forest, where his servant\nawaits him with steed and armour, he sends his \u2018Master,\u2019 Tholomy, to\nhunt in his stead; and arming himself each day in a different suit of\narmour, white, red, and black, proceeds to the tournament, where he\ncarries off the prize for valour, unhorsing all the principal knights on\neither side, even to the king himself, and his valiant nephew Cabaneus.\nEach evening he returns to the forest, reassumes his hunter\u2019s garb, and\nwith the spoils of the chase won by Tholomy takes his way to the court,\nwhere he vaunts the skill of his hounds above that of the unknown\nknight, and is roundly mocked for his lack of prowess by the ladies.\nAfter the third day he leaves secretly, to return to his own land,\nsending to the king, by the hand of a messenger, the spoils of his three\ndays\u2019 victory. The seneschal, Cananeus, volunteers to bring him back,\nand is punished for his officious interference, as related above.[13] At\nthe conclusion of this episode, Hue states that he is not lying\u2014at least\nnot more than a little\u2014and if he be \u2018\u2019tis but the custom of the day, and\nall the blame should not be laid upon him, Walter Map is just as bad.\u2019\n\n  _\u2018Ore entendez seignurs mut ben_\n  _Hue dit ke il ni ment de ren_\n  _Fors aukune feiz neent mut_\n  _Nuls ne se pot garder par tut_\n  _En mendre afere mut suvent_\n  _Un bon renable hom mesprent_\n  _El mund nen ad un sul si sage_\n  _Ki tuz iurz seit en un curage_\n  _Kar cist secles lad ore en sei_\n  _Nel metez mie tut sur mei_\n  _Sul ne sai pas de mentir lart_\n  _Walter Map reset ben sa part.\u2019_\n                                                      \u2014P. 82, ll. 19-30.\n\nNow shall we understand this merely as a general allusion, without any\nspecial significance, or was there anything in the story which Hue had\njust been relating which might reasonably be supposed to have brought\nMap to his mind? Mr. Ward very pertinently draws attention to the fact\nthat this appearance at a tournament on successive days, in different\narmour, is precisely an adventure attributed to Lancelot, and the\n_Lancelot_ is the romance most persistently attributed to Map. The\nparallel to which Mr. Ward refers is that contained in the earlier part\nof the _Prose Lancelot_.[14]\n\nLancelot first appears at Arthur\u2019s court in white armour: he is known as\n\u2018le Blanc Chevalier.\u2019 On his first absence after receiving knighthood he\nis taken prisoner by the Lady of Malehaut, who detains him in her\ncastle. A tournament, of a very warlike nature, taking place between\nArthur and Galehault, the lady releases Lancelot, who, disguised in red\narmour, performs deeds of surpassing valour. He returns to prison, and\non the encounter between the kings being renewed, again appears, this\ntime in black. Finally, he reveals himself to the queen, and tells her\nthat all the feats of arms he has achieved in the characters of white,\nred, and black knight were undertaken in her honour.\n\nThe general resemblance is, as Mr. Ward remarks, too striking to be\noverlooked; though, as he does _not_ remark, there are certain\ndifferences which seem to indicate that the version of the _Prose\nLancelot_ has undergone some modification. Thus, there are not three\nconsecutive days, but Lancelot\u2019s appearance in the three characters\noccurs at widely separated intervals. Further, Mr. Ward does not seem to\nbe aware that this is but one instance out of three in which the same,\nor a similar, adventure is attributed to Lancelot.\n\nIn the latter part of the _Prose Lancelot_, the section represented by\nthe Dutch translation, we find Arthur holding a tournament, which has\nbeen suggested by Guinevere with the view of recalling Lancelot, who has\nlong been absent, to court, and heightening his fame. Lancelot returns\nsecretly, unknown to all but the queen, who sends him a message to come\nand discomfit the knights who are jealous of him. Lancelot appears in\n_red_ armour and overthrows them all. The queen demands another\ntournament in three days\u2019 time, when Lancelot appears as a _white_\nknight, with the same result. After this he reveals himself to\nArthur.[15]\n\nBut the best parallel is that contained in the _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von\nZatzikhoven. Here Lanzelet makes his first appearance at court at a\nthree days\u2019 tournament; the first day dressed in _green_, the second in\n_white_, the third in _red_; overthrows all opposed to him, including\nKay,[16] and takes his departure, without revealing himself.\n\nWith these repeated parallels before us, it seems impossible to doubt\nthat when Hue de Rotelande referred to Walter Map, in connection with\nthe tournament episode of _Ipomedon_, he had in his mind a version of\nthe _Lancelot_, which also contained such a story, and which was\nattributed to the latter writer.\n\nBut what could this version have been? Certainly not the _Prose\nLancelot_ in its present form. As we remarked before, this romance is\nthe result of slow growth and successive redactions, and the two\nparallels contained in it bear marks of modification and dislocation. In\nmy recent studies on the Lancelot legend[17] I have pointed out that in\nthe process of evolution it certainly passed through a stage in which it\nwas closely connected with, and affected by, the _Perceval_ story.\nGradually the popularity of the hero of the younger tale obscured that\nof the elder; and in the _Lancelot_, as we now have it, the traces of\n_Perceval_ influence have almost disappeared from the majority of the\nprinted versions, though interesting survivals are still to be found in\ncertain manuscripts and in the Dutch translation. Now one of the best\nknown adventures attributed to Perceval is that in which the sight of\nblood-drops on new-fallen snow\u2014caused by a bird having been wounded, or\nslain, by a hawk\u2014recalls to his mind the lady of his love, and plunges\nhim into a trance; in which he is rudely attacked by Kay, who would\nbring him by force to court. He retaliates by unhorsing the seneschal\nwith such force that he breaks, in one version both arms, in others, an\narm and a leg.[18] It should also be noted that in the _Peredur_ a raven\nhas alighted on the slain bird, and we have the three colours, black,\nred, and white, recalling the lady\u2019s raven hair, white skin, and crimson\nlips and cheeks.[19]\n\nTaking into consideration the proved connection existing between the\n_Perceval_ and the earlier forms of the _Lancelot_, it would seem most\nprobable that a version of the tournament which included a similar\ndiscomfiture of the seneschal would belong to an earlier stage of\nevolution than one in which Kay did not appear. As I have pointed out\nabove,[20] the _Lanzelet_ version not only includes Kay\u2019s overthrow, but\nrecounts it in words that forcibly recall the _Perceval_ episode.\n\nIt also seems probable that it was such a form which was known to the\nauthor of the _Ipomedon_, as he makes the discomfiture of the seneschal\nCananeus, whose resemblance to Kay has already been pointed out, follow\nimmediately upon the tournament episode.\n\nSo far, then, as the priority of existing versions is concerned, we\nmust, I think, give a verdict in favour of the _Lanzelet_, though with\nthe reservation that even here there has been, as we shall presently\nsee, a certain modification of the story as known to Hue.\n\nWhat now do we know of the source of the _Lanzelet_? From the statement\nof the author,[21] we learn that the original of this poem was a French\nbook, \u2018_daz welsche buoch von Lanzelete_,\u2019 brought to Germany by Hugo de\nMorville, one of the hostages who, in 1194, replaced Richard C\u0153ur de\nLion in the prison of Leopold of Austria. Thus we know that the French\nbook must have been prior to that date, but so far no one has detected\nany reference that would enable us to fix the period of composition more\naccurately. But the character of the romance as we possess it\u2014a\ncollection of episodes, many of them of marked folk-lore character,\nloosely strung together, and harmonising but ill with each other\u2014makes\nit highly probable that the constituent parts of the romance had\npossessed an independent existence prior to being strung together on the\nslender thread of the hero\u2019s personality. It is therefore perfectly\npossible that the French source of the _Lanzelet_ was in existence\nbefore Hue de Rotelande wrote the _Ipomedon_; it is more than possible,\nindeed, as we shall see, a fact of almost certain demonstration\u2014that the\nadventure of the Three Days\u2019 Tournament had been ascribed to Lancelot,\ncertainly by 1160, and most probably before that date.\n\nIn the Didot _Perceval_, a romance which probably formed part of a very\nearly cyclic redaction of the Arthurian legend, and one in which\nLancelot plays a very subordinate r\u00f4le, we find an allusion to \u2018_le f\u00ecz\n\u00e0 la fille \u00e0 la femme de Malehot_,\u2019[22] which seems to suggest that even\nat that comparatively early stage the incident had undergone the\nmodification familiar to us in the _Prose Lancelot_. In the result, I\nthink we shall find that it formed one of the first steps in the\ndevelopment of the _Lancelot_ story.[23]\n\nSo far as the evidence of the _Ipomedon_ goes it suggests, if it does\nnot absolutely prove, that at the period when that poem was written\nthere was current a story which ascribed to Lancelot the adventures of\nthe Three Days\u2019 Tournament, in a form which, as might be expected in any\nearly Lancelot version, showed traces of the influence of the\n_Perceval_, and which was popularly attributed to Walter Map. Of the\nversions which we now possess, that of _Lanzelet_ best corresponds to\nthese conditions.\n\n\n\n\n                                 CLIG\u00c9S\n\n\nBut there is another claimant in the field, and one whose right to be\nconsidered the original hero of the adventure it would, according to\nProfessor Foerster\u2019s opinion, be sheer impiety to doubt!\u2014the _Clig\u00e9s_ of\nChr\u00e9tien de Troyes. In the poem of that name the hero makes his first\nappearance at Arthur\u2019s court at a tournament lasting for _four_\nsuccessive days: he wears successively _black_, _green_, _red_, and\n_white_ armour; and overthrows, on the three first days, Segramor,\nLancelot, and Perceval; fighting on the fourth day an undecided combat\nwith Gawain.[24] Professor Foerster, commenting on the _Lanzelet_,[25]\nremarks of the tournament episode \u2018_das Wechseln der R\u00fcstung stammt aus\nClig\u00e9s_; and further on[26] affirms that Chr\u00e9tien \u2018_sich\u2014im Clig\u00e9s\nsicher als ganz selbst\u00e4ndig gezeigt hat_,\u2019 a statement he repeats on p.\ncxxviii, and in another place[27] with even more emphasis, \u2018_Dieser\nselbe Kristian ist in einem Roman wie_ Niemand _ableugnen kann_ GANZ\nSELBST\u00c4NDIG _vorgegangen, im Clig\u00e9s_.\u2019 That is, Professor Foerster\nasserts, and as emphatically as print will allow him, that Chr\u00e9tien was\nentirely independent in _Clig\u00e9s_; that the episode of the change of\narmour is the same in the two poems, and was borrowed by the author of\nthe _Lanzelet_ from Chr\u00e9tien, and therefore, if words mean anything,\nthat Chr\u00e9tien invented the story, and that Clig\u00e9s is the real and\noriginal hero of the tale.\n\nWell, if assertion were argument, and a liberal display of large type\ncould settle intricate questions of literary criticism, we might hold\nthe dependence of _Lanzelet_ upon _Clig\u00e9s_ to be\u2014not proven, no\u2014but\ndetermined. But there are some few heretics who suspect that Professor\nFoerster\u2019s _ipse dixit_, though imposed with all the weight of a Papal\n_imprimatur_, is not really more competent to decide a problem of\nsources than is that notoriously fallacious engine for the suppression\nof free investigation, and therefore, _more heretico_, we will be\npresumptuous enough to examine the question for ourselves.\n\nSo far as the dates of the _existing_ versions are concerned, be it said\nat once that the _Clig\u00e9s_ is the older; _i.e._ it is older than the\n_Ipomedon_, the _Lanzelet_, or the _Prose Lancelot_; but how it stands\nwith regard to the lost French source of the _Lanzelet_ is not so easily\ndetermined. The exact date of the _Clig\u00e9s_ is not known. It was written\nafter _Erec_, the translations from Ovid, and the lost _Tristan_; but\nbefore the _Charrette_ and the _Yvain_, which fall between the years\n1164-73. Professor Foerster, in his Introduction to the _Charrette_,[28]\nhas expressed himself in favour of as late a date as possible for that\npoem\u2014towards 1170; and since the _Perceval_, Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s last work, was\nwritten about 1182, we can scarcely place the beginning of his literary\ncareer earlier than 1150. If we place the _Clig\u00e9s_ before 1160, we\nshall, I think, be ascribing too great an activity to the decade\n1150-60, in comparison with 1160-70. It seems more suitable to place the\n_Clig\u00e9s_ about 1160; but, as we shall see, the argument is not affected\nby a few years one way or the other.\n\nThe most important factor in the problem, the French source of the\n_Lanzelet_, no longer exists,[29] yet it appears certain that the whole\nquestion hinges upon the possibility of this, or an analogous French\n_Lancelot_ story, having been in existence previous to the work of\nChr\u00e9tien de Troyes. It therefore becomes necessary, not only to\ncarefully compare the two versions, that of the _Clig\u00e9s_ and that of the\n_Lanzelet_, but also to inquire as to the source from which the story\nwas originally derived. As we shall see, these two parts of our\ninvestigation mutually supplement each other, and in the sum-total\npresent us with a compact and striking body of evidence.\n\nAs a first step in the inquiry we will take the _Clig\u00e9s_, the\n_Lanzelet_, and the _Ipomedon_ (as being anterior to the _Lanzelet_ in\nits present form), and see if we can discover any traces of a knowledge\nof Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s work on the part of the two later writers. The answer will\nbe unhesitatingly in the negative. In neither work is there any\nreminiscence (with the exception of the episode in question) either in\nname or incident of the _Clig\u00e9s_. As a matter of fact, allusions to this\npoem are exceptionally rare. Professor Foerster states that there were\ntwo German translations, one by Ulrich von T\u00fcrheim and another by Konrad\nFleck, but of these only fragments remain. The _Parzival_ once mentions\na Cl\u00eeas, a knight of the Round Table, and in another place refers to the\nstory of Alexander and Soredamors, but in each case it is doubtful\nwhether the allusion is to Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s poem.[30] The English \u2018_Sir\nCleges_\u2019[31] has no connection whatever with the earlier hero, and\nMalory\u2019s allusions to a _Sir Clegis_ do not go beyond the mere name, and\ncannot be identified with either. In my _Lancelot_ studies I have\ncommented upon the indifference with which _Clig\u00e9s_ appears to have been\nreceived as being somewhat curious considering the undoubted literary\nvalue of the poem.[32]\n\nOn the other hand, the _Clig\u00e9s_ knows Lancelot as one of Arthur\u2019s most\nvaliant knights, the third in order of merit, a position he certainly\ncould not have held before his story had reached a fairly advanced stage\nof development. Indeed, Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s references to this hero deserve\nparticular attention.[33] He is first mentioned in _Erec_ as a knight of\nthe Round Table, third in rank, the two first being Gawain and Erec, but\nis only a name, taking no part in the action of the poem. In _Clig\u00e9s_ he\noccupies the same position, but here Perceval, and not Erec, ranks\nsecond. Lancelot appears upon the scene once, and once only, when he is\noverthrown by _Clig\u00e9s_ at the tournament in question. In the _Charrette_\nhe is the hero of the poem, the first of Arthur\u2019s knights, the lover of\nthe queen, and her rescuer from the prison of Meleagant. In the\n_Chevalier au Lion_ which followed, his name is mentioned but once, and\nthat in connection with an allusion to the _Charrette_. In the\n_Perceval_ his name never appears at all. It seems extraordinary that\nthe significance of these allusions, taken as a group, should so long\nhave escaped detection. As a matter of fact I failed to grasp their\nimportance myself when commenting upon them in my _Lancelot_ studies.\nThus, the tournament episode in _Clig\u00e9s_ is so close a parallel to that\nof the _Lanzelet_ that, as we have seen, Professor Foerster declares the\none to be the source of the other. The rescue of Guinevere from\nMeleagant, the theme of the _Charrette_, parallels her rescue from\nFaler\u00een, also in the _Lanzelet_. In both the queen is abducted against\nher will; in both the prison is of an otherworld character: in the one\nLancelot is of the party of rescuers, but takes no prominent share in\nthe enterprise; in the other he is the sole agent of her deliverance. In\ncommenting upon the poem in my _Lancelot_ studies,[34] I pointed out\nthat the story was, in its essence, of so primitive a character, that it\nmust certainly be, in its origin, of an earlier date than any extant\nliterary version; and that, of the two before us, the _Lanzelet_, by its\nunlocalised character, the details it gives of Faler\u00een\u2019s stronghold, and\nthe comparatively unimportant position assigned to Lancelot, must be\nconsidered the older.\n\nFurther, in the roll of knights named in _Erec_, following such\nwell-known names as Gawain, Erec, Lancelot, Gornemanz, le Biaus Coarz\n(Bel Couart), Le lez Hardis (le Laid Hardi), and Melianz de Liz, we have\n_Mauduiz li Sages_, who, as I have elsewhere pointed out (_Lancelot_, p.\n80), can hardly be other than the enchanter of the _Lanzelet_, Malduz\nder W\u00eese. Taking all these facts into consideration, the position\nChr\u00e9tien assigns to Lancelot, and the two adventures (they are really\nonly two, the incidents of the _Charrette_ are all subsidiary to the\nfreeing of Guinevere) he records, is it not perfectly clear that\nChr\u00e9tien knew, and followed, an early version of the _Lancelot_ story,\nakin to, if not identical with, the lost French source of Ulrich von\nZatzikhoven? Is it not far more probable that in the _Clig\u00e9s_ he\nborrowed from the _Lancelot_ than that an adventure so persistently, and\nso early, attributed to that well-known hero should have been borrowed\nfrom the obscure _Clig\u00e9s_?\n\nIf it be objected, as of course those who hold Professor Foerster\u2019s\nviews will object, that Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s position in the literary world of the\nday was such that it is infinitely more likely that he should be the\nlender rather than the borrower, I would ask, but how if the story from\nwhich he borrowed was held, rightly or wrongly, to be the work of Walter\nMap? Map was a much more important personage than Chr\u00e9tien. Chr\u00e9tien was\na poet, and a good poet, but at the best to the world in general he\nwould be no more than the favoured servant and dependant of a minor\nFrench princess. Map was a man of political importance, the trusted\ncompanion and emissary of the most prominent monarch of the day. What\nwas the position held by Map in the eyes of that same public to whom\nChr\u00e9tien appealed may be gathered by the anxiety which the\nromance-writers showed to shelter themselves under his name. We have one\nor two Arthurian poems, such as _e.g._, _Diu Kr\u00f4ne_, which purport to be\nby Chr\u00e9tien; we have a whole mass of prose romance, practically the main\nbody of Arthurian legend in its later form, which professes to be the\nwork of Walter Map. Could testimony as to the relative status of the two\nmen in the eyes of their contemporaries be more eloquent? Is it likely\nthat Chr\u00e9tien, even if he had held as exalted an idea of his own work as\nhis latter-day admirers would credit him with\u2014and he did _not_\u2014would\nhave thought it derogatory to his dignity to borrow from Map? I think\nnot; and if we had not a jot or a tittle of further evidence on the\nsubject, I should contend that, on the evidence of the poems alone, we\nhave strong grounds for maintaining the priority over _Clig\u00e9s_ of a lost\n_Lancelot_ version.\n\nBut as it happens, our case does not rest upon this evidence alone. We\nhave at hand an important witness; a witness to whose evidence Professor\nFoerster and his followers shut their eyes and stop their ears, but who\nnevertheless is slowly, but surely, winning recognition as an important\nfactor in the determination of such problems as those we are discussing.\nLet us turn to folk-lore, and find if from the lips of popular tradition\nwe can gather evidence that may help to decide the question. We shall\nfind an answer startling in its point and clearness.\n\n\n\n\n                             THE FOLK-TALE\n\n\nThe _Contes Lorrains_ of M. Cosquin[35] contains a story, _Le Petit\nBerger_, in which we shall find our tournament adventure in what we may\nterm full fairy-tale form. A princess expresses a desire to own a flock\nof sheep; her father consents, and hires a lad to guard them, of whom\nthe princess becomes secretly enamoured. On three successive days the\nshepherd penetrates into a forbidden wood, and on each occasion slays a\nterrible giant, clad in steel, silver, or golden armour. By the death of\nthese giants the hero becomes master of three castles, of steel, silver,\nand gold, in each of which he finds a suit of armour and a steed to\ncorrespond. He keeps the feat a profound secret, and when later on the\nking proclaims a three days\u2019 tournament, the prize of which is the hand\nof the princess, he appears each day in different armour, and mounted on\nthe corresponding steed\u2014steel, silver or golden\u2014wins the tournament, and\nweds the lady.\n\nNow this is merely the shortest and simplest form of a story, which is\nfound practically all the world over. Let us look at some of the\nvariants.\n\nIn the notes to _Le Petit Berger_ M. Cosquin cites a Tyrolean variant,\nwhere instead of three giants the hero slays three dragons, thereby\nwinning three castles. The armour corresponds to that of the previous\ntale; but the horses are black, red, and white, herein agreeing with the\n_Ipomedon_ and the _Prose Lancelot_; the compiler refers to other\nversions from the same country given by Zingerle,[36] but cites no\ndetails. In an Italian variant the horses are of crystal, silver, and\ngold.\n\nNow let us turn to another of M. Cosquin\u2019s tales, _Jean de l\u2019Ours_,[37]\nwhere the main theme of the story is the release of a princess from an\nOtherworld prison. Here we shall find a Greek tale given, the details of\nwhich are, as we shall see, specially important for our investigation. A\nprince delivers his sister and three stranger princesses from the prison\nof a _drakos_ (translated by M. Cosquin as _sorte d\u2019ogre_) on the summit\nof a high mountain. When about to descend himself, his brother cuts the\ncord and leaves him a prisoner on the mountain. In the ogre\u2019s castle he\nsees three marvellous objects: a greyhound of velvet pursuing a hare\nalso of velvet; a golden ewer which pours water of itself into a golden\nbasin; a golden hen with her chickens. He also finds three winged\nhorses, respectively white, red, and green, and sets them at liberty. In\ngratitude they transport him to the plain, and each gives him a hair\nfrom their tail, bidding him burn it when he needs their aid. The prince\ntakes service with a goldsmith in his father\u2019s city. The eldest brother\ndesires to marry the eldest of the rescued princesses; she demands a\nvelvet greyhound pursuing a velvet hare, such as she has seen in the\nogre\u2019s castle. The king offers a reward to any who can make such an\nobject. The pretended goldsmith\u2019s apprentice undertakes to do so, and\nsends the green horse to fetch the original. At the tournament in honour\nof the wedding he appears on the horse in a dress to correspond, carries\noff the honours of the day, and escapes unrecognised. His second brother\nmarries the second princess. She demands the golden ewer\u2014the red horse\ncomes to his aid, and he wins the tournament in his red dress. When the\nthird and youngest princess is to be wedded to the king\u2019s brother he\nappears in white, on the white steed, slays the would-be bridegroom with\na cast of his javelin, reveals his identity, and wins the bride. Here we\nhave the three colours of the _Lanzelet_.\n\nAgain, in the variants of _Le Prince et son Cheval_, another tale of the\nsame collection,[38] we find the Three Days\u2019 Tournament allied to the\nrescue and escape from the Otherworld _motif_. In this latter story we\nhave the well-known incident of escape from a giant, or a magician, by\nmeans of magical objects which, thrown behind the escaping pair, erect\nmysterious barriers between pursuer and pursued.\n\nIn his notes to _Le Petit Berger_, M. Cosquin quotes a remark of M.\nMullenhoff, to the effect that in one variant of the story collected by\nhim it is combined with \u2018_le conte bien connu o\u00f9 le h\u00e9ros gravit \u00e0\ncheval une montagne de verre, pour conqu\u00e9rir la main d\u2019une belle\nprincesse_.\u2019[39] Now the glass mountain is a well-recognised form of the\nOtherworld prison. Probably, too, we ought to connect with this some\nvariants of the tale where the feat is to attain the summit of a high\ntower; a version of this is known among the Avares of the Caucasus; here\nthe horses are blue, red, and black.\n\nThus we may note two well-marked classes of the tales, in one of which\n(_a_) the hero simply wins the hand of the princess at a tourney; in the\nsecond of which (_b_) he also rescues her from the Otherworld.\n\nBut there is a third variant of our story, in which the feat differs\nsomewhat from _b_. The hero is again a rescuer, but this time he rescues\nthe princess from death at the jaws of a monster, generally a dragon.\nThis we may call class _c_. In the notes to _Leopold_,[40] M. Cosquin\nrefers to a German variant where the combat lasts for three days, and\nhorses and armour are black, red, and white. In this connection, as\nmember of class _c_, Mr. Hartland has studied the story in his\nwell-known _Legend of Perseus_,[41] and some of the variants he gives we\nshall find of interest to us.\n\nIn an Irish version, _The Thirteenth Son of the King of Erin_,[42] the\nhero, who has previously slain three giants, and taken possession of\ntheir castles and wealth, comprising three steeds, black, brown, and\nred, rescues the king\u2019s daughter from a great monster, a serpent of the\nsea, \u2018which must get a king\u2019s daughter to devour every seven years.\u2019 The\ncombat lasts three days; but though the hero appears each day in a\ndifferent dress, only on the first does it correspond with the colour of\nhis horse. Here the tournament incident is lacking.\n\nA very good example, this time hailing from the Odenwald, contains the\nconquest of the giants (eight), the three days\u2019 fight with the dragon,\nand the Three Days\u2019 Tournament. Here the hero is a king\u2019s son, who,\nseeing the portrait of the princess, falls in love with her and dares\nthe adventure from which his father shrinks.[43] This tale, as Mr.\nHartland points out, apparently bears traces of literary influence, and\nit certainly recalls the _donn\u00e9es_ of the _Ipomedon_ where the hero,\nalso a king\u2019s son, is attracted by the fame of _La Fi\u00e8re\u2019s_ beauty,\nbefore he sees her.\n\nIn a gipsy variant from Transylvania, also given by Mr. Hartland, the\nprincess has been carried off by a dragon to the glass mountain (thus\napparently combining _b_ and _c_); and the horse\u2014there is but one\u2014has\nthe mysterious property of appearing red in the morning, white at noon,\nand black at night.\n\nIt must be borne in mind that the legend which Mr. Hartland was engaged\nin studying was, before all else, a rescue legend\u2014the rescue of\nAndromeda\u2014consequently the variants of our tale, collected by him, are\npractically confined to what we have designated as class _c_, where the\nfeat performed by the hero is the rescue of the princess from a monster.\nThis particular feature he carries back, in insular tradition, to the\nold Irish story of Cuchullin\u2019s rescue of Deborghill from the Fomori;\nsea-robbers, whose real character and origin are doubtful. The hero\nhears sounds of wailing, and finds the maiden, the daughter of the King\nof the Isles, exposed upon the seashore. He confronts the Fomori, three\nin number, and slays them one after the other. Thus the triple combat is\npreserved, but it appears evident that, even at this early date, the\nstory had been modified in the interests of romantic saga.[44] With this\n(class _c_) form of the story we frequently find combined what is known\nas _The False Claimant_ \u2018motif.\u2019 The hero disappears after the rescue,\nhaving either left behind him some proof of his identity, such as,\n_e.g._, the binding of the heads of the monster on a withy in such a\nmanner that none but himself can unloose them; or having in his\npossession such a proof as, _e.g._ the tongues of the severed heads, or\nthe handkerchief, ring, or ear-ring of the princess. By means of this\nproof he confutes the cowardly rival who claims to have achieved the\nfeat. This particular form of the story is perhaps, on the whole, the\none in which it is best known. There is one group which, as we shall\nsee, is of extraordinary interest and importance for the special study\nin which we are engaged.\n\nIn his _Popular Tales of the West Highlands_, under the title of the\n_Sea Maiden_, Mr. Campbell gives the following story.[45] An old and\nchildless fisherman meets with persistent ill-luck in his calling, till\none day a sea-maiden rises from the waves and promises him future\nsuccess, if he in return will give her his firstborn son (assuring him\nof the birth of three). The fisher consents, and all falls out as the\nmaiden foretells. Grown to manhood, the son, aware of the fate in store\nfor him, resolves to go \u2018where there is not a drop of sea-water.\u2019 He\nsets out, and on his journey finds a lion, a wolf, and a falcon\ndisputing over the carcase of a horse. He divides the spoil between\nthem, and in return they promise him their aid, should he be in need of\nit. He becomes herdsman to a king, and we have the adventure with the\nthree giants, in which the grateful beasts aid him, and he wins a white,\na red, and a green filly \u2018that will go through the skies\u2019\u2014obviously the\nwinged horses of the Greek folk-tale[46]\u2014and three dresses to\ncorrespond. Here he also slays the giants\u2019 mother, and wins a comb and a\nbasin, the use of which will make him the most beautiful man on earth.\nFollows the adventure with the sea-monster, a dragon apparently. The\nfight lasts for three days, and he appears each day in a different\ndress, and mounted on a different steed. The princess makes a mark on\nhis forehead as he sleeps, and thus identifies the hero as her rescuer.\nThey marry, but while walking by the seashore, the sea-maiden rises from\nthe waves and carries off the hero as her property. The princess, by the\nadvice of a soothsayer, succeeds in releasing her husband, and with the\nhelp of the grateful beasts, destroys the soul of the sea-maiden, which\nis in an egg. She being slain, the pair live happily ever after.\n\nIn this particular variant there is no _False Claimant_; but he appears\nin version number three of this story, and in version four we have the\ncurious detail that the beast \u2018was a fresh-water lake when he had killed\nher.\u2019\n\nStudents of folk-lore will note that the tale in this form includes\nfeatures not found in the majority of the versions, but representing\nwell-recognised folk-tale _formul\u00e6_. Thus the _Life Token_ is\nhere\u2014incomplete\u2014the maiden gives the fisherman \u2018something\u2019 to be given\nto his wife, his horse, and his dog (obviously a _fisherman_ does not\nneed a horse and a dog\u2014these two features do not belong to each other);\nthe wife has three sons, the horse three foals, and the dog three pups.\nHorse and dog ought rightly to play a part in the story, but in this\nspecial variant they do not appear, though in another they are mentioned\nin a subordinate r\u00f4le. The _Grateful Beasts_ and the _External Soul_ are\nequally well known in folk-tale, though again, as a rule, in a different\nconnection. But the tournament is lacking; and after examining many\nvariants of the tale, I have come to the conclusion that this feature\nbelongs exclusively to the continental versions. Horses and dresses are\nfound in the insular forms, but, so far, I have not found a single\ninstance of the tournament. On the other hand, no continental variant\nappears to contain the sea-maiden episodes.\n\nIf we now summarise the leading incidents of the various groups, we\nshall find them somewhat as follows:\u2014\n\n  1. Hero\u2014King\u2019s son. Herdsman or shepherd. Fisherman\u2019s son turned\n  herdsman.\n\n  2. Slays three giants and wins three castles in which he finds three\n  steeds of different colours with dresses or armour to correspond. The\n  horses are occasionally winged.\n\n  3. Appears at a Three Days\u2019 Tournament in these dresses, and thus wins\n  the hand of a princess.\n\n  (Incidents 1, 2, 3, which combined correspond to _Le Petit Berger_,\n  form the shortest version of our story, but probably not the most\n  primitive.)\n\n  4. Rescues the princess from an \u2018Otherworld\u2019 prison. Form of\n  imprisonment varies, but the \u2018rescue\u2019 is most generally found in\n  company with the tournament.\n\n  5. Rescues princess from a monster. Here the conflict generally lasts\n  three days, the three disguises are employed, and the tournament is\n  often absent.\n\n  6. Is robbed of the credit of his deed by a cowardly rival. This,\n  which is most generally found in combination with 5, is also sometimes\n  found in a modified form combined with 4, and is often lacking\n  altogether.\n\n  7. Is carried off by a mermaid, to whom he had been promised before\n  his birth. This appears to be confined to the Celtic group collected\n  by Mr. Campbell.\n\nIf the reader will refer to the various examples I have given above, he\nwill see that these seven incidents represent what we may call the\nperfect skeleton of our story (to use a simile often applied by Mr.\nCampbell), though the bones are differently placed in different\nversions.\n\nBut, having summarised them, we also become aware of a very curious\ncoincidence. Out of these seven incidents, six are found, and found more\nthan once, in the earlier forms of the _Lancelot_ story. Thus dropping\nout incident 2, the winning of the armour, to which I know no good\nparallel, we find that Lancelot was a king\u2019s son (incident 1), which, in\nitself, of course counts for little, but is of value in combination with\nother features (_Lanzelet_\u2014_Prose Lancelot_); that he appears at a\ntournament, three days running, in different armour, the colours of\nwhich correspond with the prevailing colours of the folk-tale\u2014green,\nred, white, or black, red, white (incident 3) (_Lanzelet_\u2014_Prose\nLancelot_); that he frees a princess (queen) from an Otherworld prison\n(incident 4) (_Charrette_\u2014_Prose Lancelot_\u2014_Lanzelet_, modified form);\nthat he slays a monster (apparently a dragon), and is robbed by a\ncowardly rival (incidents 5 and 6) (_Morien_). A second version of the\n_False Claimant_ story is found in _Le cerf au pied blanc_. Finally,\nwhen a child, he was carried off by a water maiden, _meer-w\u00eeb_ (incident\n7) (_Lanzelet_\u2014_Prose Lancelot_).\n\nNow these are characteristics which, in their _ensemble_, he shares with\nno other Arthurian hero. True, Gawain visits the Otherworld, but he does\nso rather in the character of lover of the queen of that world than as\nrescuer of one confined within its precincts. In the Dutch _Walewein_\nalone, so far as I know, is his r\u00f4le definitely that of the deliverer.\nBut none of the other incidents belong to his story. So, too, Tristan is\nthe hero of a very fine version of the _Dragon Slayer_ and _False\nClaimant_ story, and it is moreover probable that the _Morien_ version\nhas borrowed certain details from the _Tristan_, but he too can claim no\nshare in the other incidents. The close correspondence, point by point,\nwith a folk-tale of so widespread and representative a character, is, I\nsubmit, a peculiarity of the earlier _Lancelot_ story, which is of\nextraordinary interest as throwing light upon the genesis and growth of\nArthurian legend.\n\nIn this connection I have by no means forgotten the energetic protests\nwhich, in certain quarters, were evoked by Mr. Nutt\u2019s attempt to show\nthat the story of _Perceval_ might in this way be connected with popular\ntales; and I am quite prepared to be told that tales collected in the\nnineteenth century are not to be trusted as indications of the sources\nof twelfth century romance. But in the instance before us the evidence,\nwhile of precisely the same nature as in the case of _Perceval_, exceeds\nit, both in bulk and extent. The story is not one story, but a large and\nwell-marked group of tales; the folk-lore parallels affect not one, but\nmany incidents of the romance. How large and how widely diffused is that\nstory-group can only be appreciated by those who will examine the lists\nof variants appended by M. Cosquin to the four stories I have named\nabove and those cited by Mr. Campbell under the heading of the _Sea\nMaiden_, and then compare these stories with the numerous examples given\nby Mr. Hartland in his exhaustive study of the _Perseus_ legend. The\nincidents are, as I have shown, six out of a possible list of seven. If,\nfurther, we remember that the group, with all its varying forms, is\nconnected with such pre-historic heroes as Perseus and Cuchullin, we\nhave, I think, a sufficient answer to those critics who would reject the\nevidence _en masse_ on the ground of modernity.\n\nBut supposing, for the sake of argument, that we accept the possible\npriority of the romantic over the popular form, what, with regard to the\ncriticism of the Arthurian literary cycle, is the logical result? This:\nif the folk-tale be dependent upon a romance, that romance must of\nnecessity be the _Lancelot_, as no other hero offers the same\ncombination of incident. But a version of the _Lancelot_ story, from\nwhich _all_ these incidents could have been borrowed, must have been\nolder than any form of the story we now possess. As we have seen above,\nthe correspondence is sometimes with one, sometimes with another\nversion; and a very famous incident of the tale, the _False Claimant_,\nonly exists now in two romances, each of them preserved in an isolated\nand unique form. Therefore, if this be not a fully proven instance of\nthe conversion of a popular folk-tale into an Arthurian romance, it must\nbe a case of the development of a folk-tale from a fully organised and\ncoherent _Lancelot_ story in a form anterior to Chr\u00e9tien. The adherents\nof the theory which ascribes independent invention to Chr\u00e9tien de\nTroyes, and a literary origin to the Arthurian stories, can make their\nchoice between these two solutions of the problem\u2014one or the other it\nmust be.\n\nFor myself, I unreservedly accept the verdict pronounced by Mr. Campbell\nupon the _Sea Maiden_ as representative of the entire story-group. \u2018Is\nit possible that a Minglay peasant and Straparola[47] (_or we may add\nHue de Rotelande and the peasants of the Odenwald and Lorraine_)\u2014neither\nof whom can have seen a giant, or a flying horse, or a dragon, or a\nmermaid\u2014could separately imagine all these impossible things, and,\nhaving imagined them simultaneously, invent the incidents of the story\nand arrange so many of them in the same order?\n\n\u2018Is it on the other hand possible that all these barefooted, bareheaded,\nsimple men, who cannot read, should yet learn the contents of one class\nof rare books and of no other? I cannot think so.\n\n\u2018I have gone through the whole _Sea Maiden_ story, and all its Gaelic\nversions, and marked and numbered each separate incident, and divided\nthe whole into its parts, and then set the result beside the fruit of a\nsimilar dissection of Straparola\u2019s _Fortunio_, and I find nearly the\nwhole of the bones of the Italian story, and a great many bones which\nseem to belong to some original antediluvian Aryan tale. The Scotch\n(_insular_) is far wilder and more mythical than the Italian\n(_continental_).[48] The one savours of tournaments, kings\u2019 palaces, and\nthe manners of Italy long ago; the other of flocks and herds, fishermen\nand pastoral life; but the Highland imaginary beings are further from\nreality and nearer to creatures of the brain. The horses of Straparola\nare very material and walk the earth; those of old John MacPhie are\nclosely related to Pegasus and the horses of the Veda, and fly and soar\nthrough grimy peat-reek to the clouds.\u2019[49]\n\nMr. Campbell continues: \u2018What is true of the Gaelic and Italian versions\nis equally true of all others which I know. If examined, they will be\nfound to consist of a bare tree of branching incidents common to all,\nand so elaborate that no minds could possibly have invented the whole\nseven or eight times over[50] without some common model, and yet no one\nof these is the model, for the tree is defective in all, and its foliage\nhas something peculiar to each country in which it grows. They are\nspecimens of the same plant, but their common stock is nowhere to be\nfound.\u2019[51] Were Mr. Campbell living now, may we not feel sure that to\nthese closing words he would add: _Assuredly it is not to be sought in\nan Arthurian romance of the twelfth century_?\n\n\n\n\n                              THE ROMANCE\n\n\nSo much for the present as regards our folk-tale as a whole. Let us now\nsee what light the study of it may have thrown upon the special subject\nof our investigation\u2014the Three Days\u2019 Tournament. And first of all, I\nthink it has definitely settled the correctness of our title. East or\nwest, north or south, wherever we have traced our story, whatever the\nhero\u2019s feat\u2014whether the rescuing the princess from a devouring dragon,\nor the winning her hand at a knightly tournament\u2014the days required to\ncomplete the task are _three_\u2014neither more nor less.\n\nMr. Hartland, to whom I referred the point, remarks that the unvarying\ntendency in certain families of folk-tales, notably those of Oriental\norigin, is to crystallise a small but indefinite number into _three_.\nNow Mr. Campbell, as we have seen, detects a likeness between the flying\nhorses of the _Sea Maiden_ tales, and the horses of the Veda, and Mr.\nJoseph Jacobs, in a note appended to another tale,[52] quotes a further\nremark of the same writer, to the effect that the many-coloured horses\nof Indian mythology may account for all the magical horses of\nfolk-tales. So if our tale, as a whole, did not come from the east, it\nseems possible that this particular incident may have done so.[53]\n\nYet in so far as the tournament form is concerned, it is, of course,\n_possible_ that certain literary versions of the story might have been\naffected by the ordinary customs of the day. Anyway there seems to be a\nfairly close correspondence here between fact and fancy. Niedner, in his\nwork on _Das Deutsche Turnier_,[54] remarks that the tourney proper was\ngenerally held on a Monday; the knights assembled on the previous\nSaturday; Sunday morning was spent in mustering those present and\narranging the opposing factions; while the afternoon was devoted to the\nencounter known as the _Vesper-spiel_, preliminary to the grand struggle\nof the morrow. Thus the ordinary duration of such a meeting might be\nreckoned as three days.\n\nBut it is clear that there might also be three distinct encounters on as\nmany separate days, as in the folk-tale. Professor Kittredge, in his\narticle, \u2018Who was Sir Thomas Malory?[55]\u2019 notes a very remarkable and\npertinent instance taken from the life of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of\nWarwick. When that nobleman was Governor of Calais, hearing of a great\ngathering of knights, to be held in the neighbourhood, \u2018he cast in his\nmynde to do sume newe poynt of chevalry\u2019; and under the several names of\n_The Grene Knight_, _Chevalier Vert_, and _Chevalier Attendant_, sent\nthree challenges to the French king\u2019s court. These being accepted, he\nappeared the first two days in differing armour, the third \u2018in face\nopyn,\u2019 on each occasion overthrowing his antagonist.[56] The days in\nquestion are given by Rous as January 6th, 7th, and 8th; the year he\ndoes not mention; but Professor Kittredge, by a process of elimination,\narrives at the conclusion that it must have been either 1416 or 1417. It\nis, of course, obvious that this feat must have been suggested by the\nromances. It is, I think, equally obvious that the three days of the\nromances were not at variance with actual practice. As to the version of\nthe folk-tale there can be no question. The correct number is\nthree\u2014neither more nor less.\n\nIt is, of course, also clear that the occurrence of the tournament in\nthe folk-tale must be subsequent to the institution of tournaments as\npart of the ordinary chivalric and social conditions; but the tale\nitself must be earlier, as is witnessed both by the archaic nature of\nthe rescue incident and the magical nature of the horses. Trials of\nskill in horsemanship are known to all stages of society; and the\noriginal form of this special incident was doubtless something of this\nkind. In the Odenwald variant referred to above, the hero has to perform\nthe feat of carrying off on his spear a ring suspended from a beam, and\nto hang it up again in returning. This is here supposed to form part of\nthe tournament; but it seems most likely that in earlier forms the trial\nof skill by which the hero was tested and identified was simply some\nsuch feat of skilled horsemanship.\n\nNor do I think that we are to see the influence of romance, rather than\nof custom, in this transformation. Neither of the poems in which the\nincident approximates most closely to the folk-tale form, the _Lanzelet_\nand the _Ipomedon_, appear to have been particularly popular (certainly\nnot the former), judging from the number of manuscripts in which they\nhave been preserved, while the \u2018Tournament\u2019 form of the folk-tale is\nfound all over Europe. It is much more reasonable, surely, to conclude\nthat the episode has been borrowed, as so many others have been\nborrowed, from the stores of popular tradition than to hold that in this\ncase popular tradition has been modified by the influences of a literary\ncycle.\n\nBut is it not as clear as daylight that all this immense body of\nevidence absolutely and finally disposes of any claim on the part of\nChr\u00e9tien to be first in the field? The _four_ days of _Clig\u00e9s_ rule that\nromance, as a source, out of court at once and for ever. Further, not\nonly is that version demonstrably secondary in itself, but definitely\nsecondary to and dependent upon the _Lancelot_ versions. These\ncorrespond with the prevailing colours of the folk-tale\u2014black, red, and\nwhite, or green, red, and white.[57] The one is the version of the\n_Prose Lancelot_, the other of the _Lanzelet_. Chr\u00e9tien not only gives\none day too many, but manifestly does so in order to combine the two\nversions which he, in common with us, knew, and gives _both_ green and\nblack\u2014two colours which are found together in no single version of all\nthe dozens I have read.\n\nThere is a possible \u2018clerical\u2019 explanation of the existence of two\nversions of the _Lancelot_ tale. _Noir_ in the manuscript may have been\nread _vair_, and a copyist writing from oral dictation may thus have\nsubstituted _vert_. But in the face of the green, red, and white of the\nvery primitive Celtic variant given by Mr. Campbell, and confirmed by\nthe Greek parallel, I think it more likely that the three colours of the\n_Lanzelet_ represent the older form. But inasmuch as in romances, which,\nlike the Arthurian, were supposed to correspond in some measure to the\nconditions of real life, a green _horse_ would be an impossibility,\nwhile yet horse and armour should correspond, black\u2014perhaps under the\ninfluence of the _Perceval_ story\u2014would take its place. Both were\nrepresented in the folk-tale, and it may be that the version of the\n_Prose Lancelot_ and of the _Ipomedon_ simply represents \u2018the survival\nof the fittest.\u2019\n\nThat there were _two_ versions a closer study will, I think, make\nevident. Probably those who have followed the argument and illustrations\nclosely will have already detected what hitherto I have left unnoted,\nthat the version of the _Ipomedon_ stands in a much closer relation with\ncertain forms of the folk-tale, _i.e._ the _Petit Berger_ or _a_ group,\nthan is the case with either the _Clig\u00e9s_ or the two _Lancelot_\nversions. In the _Ipomedon_ alone the prize of the Three Days\u2019\nTournament is the hand of the princess. And not only is there agreement\nin this, the leading, feature, but there is also a curious\ncorrespondence in minor details. Thus, both in the poem and in the\nfolk-tale, the hero, in the character of a servant, has already won the\nprincess\u2019s love. In both she is bitterly disappointed at his apparent\nfailure to compete. In the folk-tale she sends each evening to ask why\nthe shepherd-lad has taken no part in the tourney, receiving each time\nthe answer that he was unwell, but would do his best to appear on the\nmorrow. In the poem, each evening Ipomedon sends word to the princess\nthat it is he who has gained the tourney, but that he is leaving the\ncountry immediately, and will not be present on the next day. Thus the\nheroine, in each case, is kept in uncertainty as to the intentions of\nher lover.\n\nIf we add to this the correspondence with the Odenwald variant already\npointed out,[58] and the fact that in the _Ipomedon_ alone the hero is\nwounded on the third day\u2014a feature found not only in the Odenwald story\nbut in several variants of _Le Prince et son Cheval_\u2014it becomes clear\nthat if there be a doubt as to the source of the _Clig\u00e9s_ or the\n_Lanzelet_, the _Ipomedon_ version must repose, directly or indirectly,\nupon the folk-tale.\n\nBut, as we have seen, it is precisely the evidence of the _Ipomedon_\nwhich leads us to connect the story with Walter Map, and the romance\nascribed to him, the _Lancelot_. What, then, are we to conclude? I think\nthe only satisfactory interpretation is that which I have suggested\nabove, that there were two versions of the story; in one of which the\nhero was represented as winning, and probably wedding, the princess; in\nthe other the incident, whatever its original form, had already been so\nfar modified as simply to provide an effective setting for his first\nappearance at Arthur\u2019s court. This is indeed what we find in the\n_Lanzelet_; and the general tone of that poem, wherein the hero wins the\nhand of no fewer than four ladies, and certainly weds three of them,\nshows that there would be no initial improbability in postulating\nanother and more primitive form of the story.\n\nTo return to _Clig\u00e9s_. The _dramatis person\u00e6_ of the tournament episode\nshould be considered. The hero of the adventure does not compete with\nany number of knights, but is each day confronted with a chosen\nchampion. These are, as I have already shown, Segramor, Lancelot,\nPerceval, and Gawain; and so far as the first three are concerned they\nappear here, and here only, their names, even, being otherwise\nunmentioned throughout the six thousand seven hundred and eighty lines\nof the poem.\n\nTo any one thoroughly familiar with the Arthurian romances, the\njuxtaposition of these three names is extremely significant. The\nadventure itself is elsewhere assigned to Lancelot. The hero with whom\nthe _Lancelot_ story in its earlier stages is most closely associated is\nPerceval; Chr\u00e9tien himself here introduces Perceval as a famous knight,\nwith whose renown Clig\u00e9s was already familiar, and ranks him above\nLancelot. One of the best-known adventures ascribed to Perceval is, as\nwe have already shown, one in which the three colours, black, red, and\nwhite, figure, and in which he overthrows Kay in a manner curiously akin\nto other versions of the tournament episode. But previous to\noverthrowing Kay he had vanquished Segramor, who was the first to attack\nhim. Is it not evident that Chr\u00e9tien, like the authors of the _Ipomedon_\nand the original _Lanzelet_, was here reminded of the blood-drops\nadventure? If it be asked why introduce Segramor instead of Kay, we may\nrecall the fact that while Clig\u00e9s is represented as nephew to the\nEmperor of Constantinople, Segramor, as the _Merlin_ tells us, was son\nto that potentate. Chr\u00e9tien _may_ have introduced him as less known in\nconnection with this than Kay, who is never once named in _Clig\u00e9s_; but\nI think it more likely that it was his parallelism to the hero, as well\nas his connection with Perceval, which determined his appearance.\n\nBut with regard to the latter, there is another point which deserves\nmention. In that section of the _Peredur_ which does not correspond to\nany section of the _Conte del Graal_ we find the hero, released from\nprison by the daughter of his jailer, attending a warlike tournament, in\nwhich each day he carries off the prizes; but there is no change of\narmour, and the days appear to be four instead of three. Previously to\nthis he has also appeared three successive days at a tournament; but\novercome by the beauty of the empress, of whom he is enamoured, he\nremains gazing at her, instead of taking part in the contest, until the\nthird and final day. These passages are deserving of note, as they\nappear to me to show direct contact between the _Perceval_ and\n_Lancelot_ stories, and in this instance the borrowing appears to be on\nthe part of the earlier story. Not only is Lancelot released from the\nprison of the Lady of Malehault to attend a tournament, thus\ncorresponding with the one instance, but when he arrives on the spot he\nbehaves in precisely the same manner at the sight of Guinevere as is\nrecorded of Peredur with the empress. I do not feel able to accept the\ntournament as a real part of the _Perceval_ story, no other feature of\nany version of the Perceval \u2018_Enfances_\u2019 corresponding with the\n_formul\u00e6_ of the group in question; yet the correspondence of detail\nbetween the two stories is so undeniable that contact of some sort,\ndirect or indirect, there must be, and I think in this case we must hold\nthat the _Peredur_ has been influenced by a version of the _Lancelot_\nakin to that preserved in the prose redaction.\n\nTo return to _Clig\u00e9s_. Taking into consideration all the evidence, the\nimportance and widespread character of the folk-tale, the closer\ncorrespondence of both the _Ipomedon_ and the _Lanzelet_ to the popular\nform, and the peculiarities of the _Clig\u00e9s_ version, it becomes, I\nthink, impossible to doubt that this latter, so far from being the\n_source_ of the _Lanzelet_, is, as submitted above, not merely posterior\nto, but distinctly dependent upon a form of that story. And if we admit\nthis, must we not also admit that here, at least, Chr\u00e9tien did _not_\nunderstand the character of the material with which he was dealing, and\nthat in this instance he certainly deserves the epithet which Professor\nFoerster asserts we would wish to apply to him, that of _ein\nverschlechternder Ueberarbeiter_? The phrase, be it remembered, is\nProfessor Foerster\u2019s, and not mine; but so admirably does it suit the\npresent question, that I can only say, \u2018_I thank thee, friend, for\nteaching me this word!_\u2019 Chr\u00e9tien was _not_ dealing directly with\npopular tradition, but taking it at second-hand after it had already\nbeen modified and worked over in romantic form. To put it tersely, in\nthe Three Days\u2019 Tournament we have a folk-tale theme intelligently\nadapted by the authors of the _Ipomedon_ and the _Lanzelet_, and\nmisunderstood and \u2018muddled\u2019 by Chr\u00e9tien.\n\n\n\n\n                   THE BEARING ON THE LANCELOT STORY\n\n\nBut the interesting problems connected with this episode are not all\nsolved when we have determined the ultimate source of the story, and the\nposition to be assigned to Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s version. As we have seen, there is\nstrong ground for believing that the French poet knew two versions of\nthe _Lancelot_ story; is it not possible that one of these versions may\nhave been the lost French source of the _Lanzelet_? The \u2018setting\u2019 of the\n_Clig\u00e9s_ tournament, in which the hero makes his first appearance at\nArthur\u2019s court, corresponds with that of the _Lanzelet_; and, as we have\nremarked above, in the _Erec_ we find not only the name of Lancelot, but\nalso that of the enchanter Mauduiz, who appears nowhere save in U. von\nZatzikhoven\u2019s poem. Professor Foerster\u2019s opinion is that we must\nconsider the German _Lanzelet_ as \u2018_die m\u00f6glichst getreue Wiedergabe\neines franz\u00f6sischen Originals_\u2019; and on this point at least, I, for one,\nam quite prepared to agree with him. Whether, after a real study of that\npoem (with which I strongly suspect he had only a superficial\nfamiliarity), the learned professor will desire to maintain his opinion\nis another question! But, granting that the German version correctly\nreproduces the French original, the nature of the work\u2014a loosely\nconnected collection of independent tales, of marked folk-lore\ncharacter\u2014points to a period of evolution anterior to Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s\nwell-knit and elaborately polished literary productions.\n\nThen, again, there arises the question, Granting the existence of a\n_Lancelot_ romance previous to Chr\u00e9tien, could Walter Map have been the\nauthor? On this point it is not easy, with the material at our disposal,\nto express a decided opinion. Map and Chr\u00e9tien were certainly\ncontemporaries, but in neither case do we know the date of birth. Map\ndied in 1209, therefore we may suppose he was not born long before 1140;\na later date is scarcely probable, as he was a student at Paris in 1154,\nand at the court of Henry II. before 1162.[59] We do not know when\nChr\u00e9tien wrote the _Erec_, but it was almost certainly some time in the\ndecade 1150-60. That Map should have been the author of a _Lancelot_\npoem earlier than the _Erec_ is quite possible, but, perhaps, not very\nprobable; but there would have been ample time for him to write one\nbefore the _Clig\u00e9s_. Thus, while I think it highly probable that\nChr\u00e9tien borrowed from Map in the latter poem, I would reserve my\nopinion as to the former. Of the probable character of such a work we\ncan gather some idea from Map\u2019s undoubted literary remains; _De Nugis\nCurialium_ offers abundant proof of the writer\u2019s taste for popular tales\nand traditions. Had he lived in the nineteenth-twentieth centuries,\ninstead of the twelfth-thirteenth, Map would undoubtedly have been a\nprominent member of the Folk-Lore Society.[60] His _Lancelot_ poem might\nhave been a short episodic romance of folk-tale character, a Three Days\u2019\nTournament story, or it might have been a collection of such episodes,\nlike the _Lanzelet_, _i.e._ its character would probably be _popular_\nrather than _literary_. I should myself have felt inclined to decide for\nthe _Lanzelet_ source, were it not for the evidence of the _Ipomedon_,\nwhich appears to presuppose a version closer to the original folk-tale.\n\nAnother point to be borne in mind in connection with the _Clig\u00e9s_, and\none to which I have already drawn attention,[61] is the peculiar\ngeography of the poem, which is distinctly Anglo-Norman rather than\nArthurian; the tale is obviously composed of originally independent\nthemes; and whatever may have been contained in the book of the Beauvais\nLibrary, I think it is at the least possible that part of Chretien\u2019s\nmaterial came to him from insular sources.\n\nAs regards the _Lanzelet_, we know that the source of that poem came\nfrom England, and elsewhere[62] I have pointed out that a curious\nallusion to England (_not_ as is more usual to _Britain_) seems to make\nit probable that the French original was written in this island. If we\ncouple with this the authorship and evidence of the _Ipomedon_, and the\npersistent attribution of a _Lancelot_ romance to Walter Map, we have, I\nthink, a strong presumption in favour of an early _insular_ version of\nthat story.\n\nWhile this study was in the printer\u2019s hands I came across the following\nallusion to the slaying of a dragon by Lancelot; it occurs in the\nAuchinleck Manuscript version of _Sir Bevis of Hampton_ (_Cxxx_):\u2014\n\n  \u2018_After Josianis cristing_\n  _Beves dede a gret fighting\u2014_\n  _Swich bataile ded never non_\n  _Cristene man of flesch and bon\u2014_\n  _Of a dragoun thar beside,_\n  _That Beves slough ther in that tide;_\n  _Save Sire Lancelet de Lake_\n  _He faught with a furdrake_ [fiery dragon],\n  _And Wade dede also_\n  _And never knightes boute thai to._\u2019[63]\n\nThis allusion is the more interesting as, saving in the case of\n_Morien_, to which I have already referred, I have nowhere found this\nspecial feat attributed to Lancelot; certainly it does not occur in the\nwhole extent of the _Prose Lancelot_, nor is it ever alluded to in that\nromance. Yet, if my theory of the evolution of the Lancelot legend be\ncorrect, such a combat ought certainly, at one time, to have formed part\nof his story. The evidence of this Anglo-Norman romance, supported as it\nis by the independent testimony of _Morien_, is therefore especially\nwelcome; I am inclined to think that it strongly increases the\nprobability of a definitely _insular_ version of the story, differing in\nsome respects from the _continental_, having existed at the time the\n\u2018_Sir Bevis_\u2019 was written.\n\nNor would the existence of such a version be, as Professor Foerster\nasserts, incompatible with the continental _origin_ of the\ncharacter;[64] to assert as much is really to stultify his own\narguments. Does not the whole system of Professor Foerster rest upon the\nhypothesis that the character of Arthur, indisputably of insular\n_origin_, underwent development upon continental ground? The fact that\nwhat he roundly denies of Arthur he asserts emphatically as natural for\nLancelot throws a flood of light upon the _ex parte_ character of this\ndistinguished scholar\u2019s methods!\n\nIf we take into consideration the character of the elements composing\nthe early _Lancelot_ story, a character which, be it remembered, is not\na question of suggestion but a matter of proof, we shall become clearly\naware that the material for development existed on both sides of the\nChannel. I believe myself that Lancelot was of continental origin, but I\nrecognise clearly that if the source and development of his story were\nsuch as I suppose them to have been, that continental origin was a\nmatter of accident, not of necessity; and if some other scholar should\nbring forward arguments to prove that the story had its rise on insular\nrather than on continental ground, I shall be quite prepared to\nreconsider the question.\n\nSo far as the evidence I have now collected is concerned, it looks as if\nthe development of the early _Lancelot_ story might thus be sketched:\u2014\n\n  _a._  _Lai_ (presumably Breton), relating theft of king\u2019s son by\n  water-fairy, amplified by\n\n  _b._ Bringing up of youth in Otherworld kingdom, peopled by women only\n  (source, general Celtic tradition, possibly _Gawain_ legend).\n\n  _c._ His entry into the world (_Perceval_ legend).\n\n  _d._ Introduction of adventures of _Sea Maiden_ story, _a_ being the\n  point of contact, and suggesting the development, which may have been\n  as follows:\u2014\n\n  _d^a._ Winning of magic steeds and armour.\n\n  _d^b._ { Rescue of princess from monster, and _False Claimant_ story;\n              or\n\n  _d^c._ { Rescue of princess from Otherworld. As we have seen (p. 25),\n              it would be quite possible for these to be combined.\n\n  _d^d._ Appearance at Three Days\u2019 Tournament.\n\nIt would seem not improbable that it was the independent existence of\nincident _d^c_ in the popular tale that led to its coalescing with the\nArthurian legend. As I have elsewhere pointed out,[65] the character of\nthe Guinevere abduction story is in itself so primitive that it may well\nhave formed part of the earliest stratum of Arthurian tradition. The\nvariants are of such a nature as to indicate that they arose at a period\nwhen the real meaning of the story was still understood, and carefully\nretained. The tale must therefore be far older than any extant\n_literary_ version.\n\nIf we admit the suggested hypothesis\u2014that the hero of the Lancelot _lai_\nbecame through the \u2018mermaid\u2019 incident identified with the hero of the\n_Sea Maiden_ story\u2014the character of that story, and the immense\npopularity to which its wide diffusion testifies, would give us a solid\nworking hypothesis to account for the choice of Lancelot as Guinevere\u2019s\nlover. The similarity of the stories led to his identification with her\nrescuer, and that step once taken the recognition of him as her lover\nwas\u2014given the social conditions of the time and the popularity of the\n_Tristan_ story\u2014a foregone conclusion.[66]\n\nBut this evolution, so far as we can tell, took place on _both_ sides of\nthe Channel. Thus, while I have found no single _insular_ version which\ngives the Tournament episode, I have equally found no _continental_\nvariant which contains the mermaid. Yet it is the latter (mermaid) which\nappears to form the point of contact between the folk-tale and the\n_lai_, while it is the persistent recurrence of the former (the\nTournament) which has given us the key to disentangle the complicated\nevolution of the story.\n\nHere is a point on which I should wish to make my position perfectly\nclear. I do not think that Lancelot was _ab origine_ the hero of a\nvariant of this popular and widely-spread folk-tale. The persistent\nelement in the _Lancelot_ story is, as I have elsewhere shown, his\nconnection with the beneficent Lady of the Lake. Now the maiden of the\nfolk-tale is a sea, not a lake, maiden, and is, further, consistently\nrepresented as of a malicious, rather than a kindly, character. True,\nshe aids the fisher in the first instance, but she belongs to that order\nof beings whose gifts, apparently desirable, are saddled with conditions\nwhich turn to the undoing, rather than to the profit of the receiver.\nAlso, her presence in the story is restricted to a small and well-marked\ngroup of variants, which apparently preserve a primitive type of the\nstory, and are never combined with the Tournament, which recurs so\nfrequently in the _Lancelot_ romances.\n\nAgain this folk-tale, _qu\u00e2_ folk-tale, does not belong to the same group\nas that which offers parallels to the _Perceval_ story; yet the\n_Lancelot_ story was certainly affected, and that at an early stage of\ndevelopment, by the _Perceval_. Folk-lore students are well aware of the\nfacility with which one story-type can become contaminated by another\noriginally distinct from it; and while I see in the common \u2018folk-tale\u2019\norigin of the two legends a satisfactory explanation of the undeniable\ninfluence traceable through all the earlier stages of the _Lancelot_\nevolution, I would yet distinguish sharply between the two heroes.\nPerceval is a British (insular) Celt; Lancelot a continental (Breton)\nCelt, the development of whose story is posterior to that of the insular\nhero. For all these reasons I think it most probable that Lancelot was\nthe hero of an independent, and originally short, tale, which by an\naccidental similarity of incident became connected with one of the most\npopular of known folk-tales, from which it freely borrowed adventures,\nand which, through the medium of one of these adventures, became later\nincorporated with the Arthurian tradition and developed upon romantic\nlines.\n\n\n\n\n             EVIDENCE FOR AN INSULAR VERSION OF THE ROMANCE\n\n\nThe whole character of the earlier _Lancelot_ story is strongly\nreminiscent of a _lai_, and I see no reason to depart from the opinion\nexpressed in my _Lancelot_ \u2018Studies,\u2019 that the root of the whole\nwonderful growth is to be sought in such a _lai_.\n\nNor do I see reason to doubt that this _lai_ may have been of\ncontinental origin, and at the same time have taken this most important\nstep in development upon insular ground. I cannot agree with those\nscholars who appear to regard the Channel as an impassable barrier to\ncommunication previous to the date of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes, and the most\nfacile medium of intercourse immediately after that date!\n\nFor more than a century previous, _i.e._ from the days of Edward the\nConfessor, intercourse between the English court and the north of France\nhad been frequent and continuous; for nearly a century the kings of\nEngland had also been princes of France. When, therefore, we find, as we\ndo, that the materials for the development of a story existed on both\nsides of the Channel, and that the story, in its completed form, is akin\nto both continental and insular variants, forming, as it were, a link\nbetween the two, and combining forms which are not known to meet\nelsewhere, the conclusion that the process of evolution was not confined\nto one country appears neither illogical nor unfounded.\n\nI would, therefore, now suggest that we have solid grounds for supposing\nthat the story of Lancelot, starting as a Breton _lai_, and brought in\nthat form to England, became in these islands connected with a special\nvariant of a very widely diffused folk-tale. Having borrowed from this\ntale certain adventures, it found its way back, in this enlarged form,\nto the Continent, where the story from which it had borrowed being\nequally well known, it underwent further development on the same lines.\nI suspect that here the flying horses of the Celtic tale became\ntransformed into the normal steeds of the Three Days\u2019 Tournament, though\nthe colour of the armour\u2014green, red, and white\u2014was at first retained.\n\nBut on which side of the Channel was the final and most important step,\nthe incorporation with the Arthurian cycle, taken? Of the various\nversions of Guinevere\u2019s abduction, the Melwas story exists only in an\ninsular text, the _Vita Gild\u00e6_, and this is apparently connected with a\npartly lost and entirely confused Welsh tradition. The Meleagant version\nis by locality directly connected with Melwas; and the only extant\nversion of the Faler\u00een abduction tale came from England. I submit that\nhere again we have reasonable ground for the hypothesis that the\nidentification of Lancelot as Guinevere\u2019s rescuer, and subsequently as\nher lover, may be due to insular rather than continental development.\nThe question is, as will be seen, by no means an easy one, and I should\nprefer to express no definite opinion as to the real bearing of the\nevidence here adduced. There are, as I have shown, indications pointing\nin opposite directions. The precise value and relation of these\nindications will be better realised as we become more familiar with what\nis at present a somewhat novel interpretation of the facts. In any case\nit will be seen that the theory here advanced only affects the earlier\nstages of the _Lancelot_ story, leaving untouched the question of its\ndevelopment as part of the Arthurian romantic cycle. It affords us a\nworking hypothesis which may enable us to bridge the gulf between\nLancelot the independent hero (_Lanzelet_) and Lancelot the queen\u2019s\nlover (_Charrette_), a gulf which has hitherto presented a problem\nbaffling to the Arthurian student.\n\nBut is it not also apparent that, in the light of the evidence here\ncollected, the theory of an Anglo-Norman Arthurian tradition,\nindependent of, and anterior to, Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s poems should no longer be\ncontemptuously derided? Whatever may be the eventual verdict on the\nevolution of the _Lancelot_ story, the examination of the various\nromantic versions of the Tournament story, in the light of folk-lore\nevidence, has, I think, made absolutely clear to any unprejudiced critic\nthat the _Clig\u00e9s_ version cannot possibly be the source of either the\n_Lanzelet_ or the _Ipomedon_, but represents a version further removed\nfrom the original form, and in all probability dependent upon some\nvariant, or variants, of the _Lancelot_. And if this be the case in one\npoem, and that the very poem in which the admirers of Chr\u00e9tien assert\nroundly that his independence is most clearly shown, are we not\njustified in our hesitation as regards his other works?\n\nIn my _Lancelot_ \u2018Studies\u2019 I showed that Professor Foerster\u2019s theory as\nto the origin of the _Yvain_ would not bear the test of strict\nexamination; that evidence, both internal and external, could be adduced\nin favour of the view that the tale was but a collection of _lais_, put\ntogether and worked over by others before Chr\u00e9tien gave the final touch\nwhich converted them into a literary whole. Before long I hope to show,\nwhat I have recently recognised as a fact capable of demonstration, that\nthe _Perceval_ \u2018_Enfances_,\u2019 so far from being the source of the other\nversions, is but an incomplete and inferior version of a story, which in\nits original and perfect form no longer exists, but is better preserved\nelsewhere. _Erec_, so far, I have not examined, but I have little doubt\nthat the result of careful investigation will here be the same; certain\nit is that the initial adventure, the chase of a fairy stag, represents\na superstition alive in these islands to this day. The trackers on\nDartmoor claim to be able to distinguish the \u2018slot\u2019 of the fairy deer\nfrom among all others, and will solemnly warn the huntsmen of the\nfutility of following such a trail.\n\nThose of us, and they are many, who entertain a profound respect, not\nmerely for M. Gaston Paris\u2019 learning, but also for his keen critical\ninstinct, and what I can best express as \u2018sense of atmosphere,\u2019 have\nhesitated, even though little evidence appeared to be forthcoming, to\ndismiss lightly, not to say discourteously, a theory which had the\nsupport of his authority; the foregoing pages will, I hope, show grounds\nfor believing that an investigation, conducted perhaps on somewhat\ndifferent lines to those hitherto in favour, will fully justify this\nhesitation.\n\nWe are only on the threshold of Arthurian criticism, and till we have\nthoroughly familiarised ourselves with the elementary conditions of the\nproblem before us, it is both premature and unscientific to expect to\nobtain in any section of this wide field a result which can be claimed\nas permanent. Thoroughness is an admirable quality; but the thoroughness\nwhich consists in carefully and microscopically surveying a single part,\nbefore we have ascertained the relation of that part to the whole, is\nonly too apt to result in throwing that whole hopelessly out of focus.\nThe time has not yet come when a final study of any part of the\nArthurian legend, based upon a comparison of all the texts, is possible\nor indeed desirable. The different threads that form the shifting\npattern of the fabric are so interwoven that no one can as yet be\ndisentangled _beyond a certain point_ without injury to the whole.\n\nThus neither the _Gawain_, the _Perceval_, nor the _Lancelot_ stories\ncan at the present moment receive satisfactory and _final_ treatment. In\nthe advanced stages of Arthurian legendary development these three main\nlines of tradition have become so entangled, have crossed and\ncomplicated each other to such an extent, that it is only by following\nwhat we may call a parallel method of study that we can hope to\ndetermine their exact relationship to each other; while until that exact\nrelationship be accurately determined, a scientific study of the cycle,\nas a whole, is impossible. There appear to me to be three possible lines\nof investigation, any one of which will probably throw light on the\nother two; while the results to be obtained from all three would go far\ntowards providing a sound and scientific basis for future inquiries.\nThese three are (_a_) The various versions of the Gawain Grail quest;\nabsolutely necessary if we desire to understand the development of the\nGrail section of the cycle. (_b_) The _Perceval_ continuations; which\ncontain sections belonging to early and non-cyclic versions of the\nstories affected, combined with sections drawn from later and cyclic\nredactions. These texts will also throw light upon the small and\ninteresting cycle of the _Bel Inconnu_, which is connected with all the\nthree lines of tradition, and is important for all. (_c_) A comparative\nstudy of the various _Lancelot_ versions, which will enable us to\ndisentangle the earlier _Perceval-Lancelot_ redactions from the later\n_Galahad_ development.\n\nBut in this investigation there are certain principles which must be\nkept clearly in view. We must remember that a cycle like the Arthurian\ncycle, compounded largely of what we may call mythical and imaginative\nelements, and largely devoid of historical basis, cannot be examined and\ncriticised on the same principles and by the same methods as can the\nCharlemagne cycle, where historic conditions, though modified for\nromantic purposes, have controlled and shaped the process of\ndevelopment.[67]\n\nIn this latter case an appeal to documentary evidence, and a criticism\nconducted largely on literary lines, is, by nature of the material to be\ndealt with, entirely in its place; in the former, inasmuch as the\nmaterial of which it is composed belongs far less to history than to\nthat indefinable body we call popular tradition, which never finds more\nthan partial expression in literature, and yet maintains its character\npractically unchanged throughout the centuries, we must follow a\ndifferent method.\n\nNot that the historic element is to be neglected; far from it. On the\ncontrary, I would urge that greater attention be bestowed on certain\nhistoric factors than has hitherto been the case. The Arthurian romances\ndo not, as do the Charlemagne, reflect more or less correctly certain\nfacts, or periods of history, but the circumstances and surroundings of\ntheir origin may nevertheless have been more or less determined by\nhistoric conditions, _i.e._ the influence exercised by the court and\npolicy of Henry II.\n\nWe are perfectly well aware that a feature of that monarch\u2019s domestic\npolicy was his desire to conciliate the Welsh by a clever use of their\npopular traditions. The alleged discovery of King Arthur\u2019s tomb at\nGlastonbury was, as most historians now recognise, merely an ingenious\nmove in the political game. To what extent he carried his encouragement\nand adoption of Arthurian tradition we have perhaps hardly yet realised.\nThe fact that it was possible to publish in 1167 a correspondence\npurporting to be between the King and Arthur in Avalon shows that if\nHenry did not directly encourage the forgery, he at least saw no ground\nfor discouraging it, and was willing to play into the hands of any one\nfurthering this special line of conciliation. We know, as a matter of\nliterary evidence, that the manuscripts of a very large section of\nArthurian prose romance attribute their composition to the direct\ncommand of the king; but so far we have not attempted to ascertain the\nprecise value to be placed on this recurring testimony. I believe myself\nthat a careful investigation into the literary patronage exercised by\nHenry, and his interest in Arthurian traditions, would yield results\nsomewhat disconcerting to the adherents of the Continental School.\n\nOf the value of folk-lore and folk-tale as witnesses in the case of a\ngroup of stories based largely upon popular tradition, and in their\nearlier stages of evolution the property of popular story-tellers, we\nare only slowly becoming aware. But the study of story-transmission has\nin these last years made immense strides, and may now claim to be fairly\nbased upon sound scientific principles. The extent to which such a\nstudy, accurately and carefully carried on, may reflect light upon\nallied subjects, such as the Arthurian cycle, has yet to be realised. It\nmay be hoped that these pages will lend encouragement to the following\nup of this special line of investigation.\n\nBut there is a danger in our path. Admiration for the learning and\nindefatigable industry of German scholars has, I fear, caused too many\nof us to erect into a fetich the result of their labours, and to hold\nourselves thereby absolved from the toil of first-hand investigation.\nThis is to render no true service to the cause of scholarship; no one\nman, no group of men, may claim to be infallible. The result of recent\ninvestigation into the value and correctness of Dr. Sommer\u2019s _Studies on\nthe Sources of Malory_,[68] a book which for ten years past has been\nunhesitatingly accepted in scholarly circles as a reliable authority,\nshould be an object lesson to all of us in the necessity of caution, and\nthe individual responsibility which rests upon each to ascertain\nindependently, so far as it be possible, the correctness and solidity of\nthe ground upon which we found our arguments and our conclusions.\n\nCareful and systematic work, with, from time to time, the revision and\ncomparison of results, only to be attained by publication, will, I\nbelieve, before very long, enable us to place the criticism of the\nArthurian cycle upon a really satisfactory basis. At present it is vain\nto hope that any one of us can produce, in this particular line of\nliterary investigation, a _magnum opus_ that shall be beyond the\nnecessity of revision, and sealed with the stamp of permanent and\nenduring value.\n\n\n\n\n                               Footnotes\n\n\n[1]Professor Foerster\u2019s edition of the poems of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes are\n    probably the most satisfactory critical texts we at present possess,\n    but the value of these is greatly impaired by the controversial use\n    made of the prefaces attached to them.\n\n[2]These and other details will be found in Mr. Ward\u2019s article on\n    \u2018Ipomedon,\u2019 _Catalogue of Romances_, vol. i.\n\n[3]_Ipomedon_ in drei englischen Bearbeitungen: Breslau 1889.\n\n[4]_Supra_, p. xxix.\n\n[5]The fact that, as we have pointed out, he sometimes agrees with one,\n    sometimes with the other version, seems to indicate that he knew the\n    common original of both.\n\n[6]_Ipomedon_, A. l. 5500.\n\n[7]_Lanzelet_, Von Zatzikhoven, ll. 2911-15.\n\n[8]_Dutch Lancelot_, vol. i. ll. 42,819 _et seq._\n\n[9]_Ipomedon_, p. xxviii.\n\n[10]For the various epilogues and ascriptions of authorship, cf. _Die\n    Sage vom Gral_, Birch-Hirschfeld, chap. vii.\n\n[11]Cf. Birch-Hirschfeld, _supra_.\n\n[12]_Vide De Nugis Curialium_, ed. Wright, p. viii.\n\n[13]Cf. _supra_, p. 5.\n\n[14]Cf. P. Paris, _Romans de la Table Ronde_, vol. iii.\n\n[15]Cf. _D. L._, vol. i. ll. 19,595 _et seq._; _Legend of Sir Lancelot_,\n    p. 235.\n\n[16]Cf. _supra_, p. 5.\n\n[17]_The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac_, Grimm Library, vol. xii.\n\n[18]Cf. the reference to this adventure in _Morien_, quoted _supra_, p.\n    5.\n\n[19]For these three colours in this connection, cf. my translation of\n    _Parzival_, vol. i. p. 317.\n\n[20]P. 5.\n\n[21]Cf. _Lanzelet_, ll. 9309 _et seq._\n\n[22]Hucher, _Le Grand S. Graal_, vol. i. p. 421.\n\n[23]Professor Foerster\u2019s remark (_Charrette_, Introduction, p. xlvi),\n    that Hugo would, not improbably, take with him a copy of the last\n    romance which had created a popular _furore_, is one of those\n    gratuitous assumptions which, to the learned professor, assume the\n    virtue of facts, but which cannot be admitted, by any serious\n    critic, as a contribution to the argument. Professor Foerster seems\n    to imagine a twelfth century \u2018Mudie\u2019 with a \u2018run\u2019 on the latest\n    novel! If the source of the _Lanzelet_ had created in any sense a\n    _furore_, it would scarcely have disappeared so completely.\n    Considering the slowness of reproduction in those days, it is at\n    least as likely that the book was an old and valued favourite; but\n    as I said above, such hypotheses do not advance the question one way\n    or the other.\n\n[24]Cf. _Clig\u00e9s_, ll. 4575-4985.\n\n[25]_Charrette_, p. xliii.\n\n[26]P. cxxvi.\n\n[27]P. cxxxviii.\n\n[28]P. xix.\n\n[29]I believe myself that the two works of the greatest importance for\n    determining the evolution of the Arthurian cycle are these lost\n    French sources of the _Lanzelet_ and of the _Parzival_. It is not, I\n    think, impossible that fragments at least may remain entombed in\n    some library. When their importance is more generally recognised\n    there may perhaps be an organised attempt made at their discovery.\n\n[30]I have not seen either of these German fragments. Professor\n    Foerster\u2019s tendency to claim as Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s undoubted property\n    everything that even remotely resembles the work of the French poet\n    makes caution needful. I give the statement entirely upon his\n    authority. With regard to the passage in the _Parzival_, Book XII.\n    l. 116, _et seq._, at first sight it seems clearly to refer to\n    Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s poem; but, as Professor Foerster himself admits, the work\n    clearly consists of two sections, and it seems quite possible that\n    the first part, the story of Alexander and Soredamors, may have been\n    known independently. As the testimony of the _Perceval_ poems\n    proves, there was current a love story connected with a sister of\n    Gawain. The weak point in this _Parzival_ allusion is, that the poet\n    is recalling the torments that Gawain and his kin have suffered\n    through \u2018_Minne_.\u2019 Now the love story of Clig\u00e9s and Phenice is far\n    more tragic than that of Clig\u00e9s\u2019 parents; and it is difficult to\n    understand why, if the writer knew the _whole_ poem, he should refer\n    only to the weaker illustration, as both are equally connected with\n    Gawain. I suspect myself that the allusion was in Wolfram\u2019s source,\n    and refers to the source of the _Clig\u00e9s_.\n\n[31]Printed in Weber\u2019s _Metrical Romances_, vol. i.\n\n[32]Cf. _Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 81.\n\n[33]_Ibid._ p. 5.\n\n[34]Chaps. ii and iv.\n\n[35]Vol. ii. No. XLIII.\n\n[36]_Tiroler Kinder- und Haus-M\u00e4rchen._\n\n[37]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. i. No. I.\n\n[38]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. i. No. XII.\n\n[39]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. ii. p. 96.\n\n[40]_Op. cit._, vol. ii. No. LV.\n\n[41]Grimm Library, vols. ii., iii., v.\n\n[42]_Perseus_, vol. iii. p. 4.\n\n[43]_Perseus_, vol. iii. p. 15.\n\n[44]Cf. _The Cuchullin Saga_, Grimm Library, vol. viii. p. 81.\n\n[45]Vol. i. p. 96.\n\n[46]Cf. _supra_, p. 23.\n\n[47]A reference to _Fortunio_, one of the tales of our group, included\n    in the fifteenth century collection of Straparola.\n\n[48]The additions in italics are mine.\u2014J. L. W.\n\n[49]To this our present investigation enables us to add that while M.\n    Cosquin\u2019s shepherd lad unites the pastoral features with the courtly\n    tournament, the Greek variant retains the flying steeds and gives us\n    the tournament to boot.\n\n[50]The number is of course far greater, but Mr. Campbell unfortunately\n    did not live to know the _Contes Lorrains_ or the _Perseus_.\n\n[51]_Popular Tales of the West Highlands_, vol. iv. pp. 277, 278.\n\n[52]\u2018The Black Horse,\u2019 _More Celtic Fairy Tales_, p. 226.\n\n[53]Mr. Hartland also draws attention to the parallel between the three\n    disguises of the hero and the three dresses of the heroine in\n    certain variants of the _Cinderella_ story. In the _Aschenbr\u00f6del_\n    the robes are woven of sun, moon, and stars.\n\n[54]Berlin, 1881.\n\n[55]_Harvard Studies and Notes_, vol. v. pp. 94, 95.\n\n[56]John Rous, _Life of Richard, Earl of Warwick_.\n\n[57]I should like to draw the attention of readers to the fact that\n    these two \u2018triplets\u2019 of colours are also to be met with elsewhere.\n    Thus black, white, and red are found, as we have seen, in a famous\n    incident of the _Perceval_; and that curious book, _Durandus on\n    Symbolism_, gives them as the colours of the three veils covering\n    the altar at Passiontide. White, green, and red are found in the\n    legend of the Tree of Life, and Solomon\u2019s Ship, preserved in the\n    _Queste_ and _Grand Saint Graal_. A friend, learned in such matters,\n    has informed me that these sets of colours represent certain\n    alchemical processes, and in that connection were well known in\n    medi\u00e6val times. It seems possible that there may have been some\n    hidden and mystical significance attached to their earliest use; we\n    have not fathomed all the secrets of folk-lore.\n\n[58]P. 25.\n\n[59]For details of Map\u2019s life, cf. _Dictionary of National Biography_,\n    and the Introduction to Wright\u2019s edition of _De Nugis Curialium_.\n\n[60]I would draw the attention of students of the _Lais_ of Marie de\n    France to the fact that Map gives several versions of the wedding of\n    a knight with a fairy, or Otherworld, mistress. Also a version of a\n    visit to the Otherworld kingdom with an ending closely corresponding\n    with that of the _Voyage of Bran_, and _Guingamor_, and in each case\n    he locates the story in Wales. It is perfectly clear that tales,\n    such as we find in the _Lais_, were at least as well known in these\n    islands as on the Continent.\n\n[61]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 83.\n\n[62]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 11. The folk-lore allusions in the\n    _Lanzelet_ are worth following up.\n\n[63]I am indebted to Mr. W. B. Blaikie for kindly verifying the\n    quotation for me.\n\n[64]Cf. _Charrette_, p. lxxvii.\n\n[65]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 46 _et seq._\n\n[66]The theory which I advanced in chap. vii. of the _Legend of Sir\n    Lancelot_ with regard to the temporary disappearance of the\n    tradition of Guinevere\u2019s infidelity is, I think, strengthened by the\n    evidence of the various \u2018chastity-test\u2019 _Lais_, Horn, Mantle, Glove.\n    We might reasonably expect Guinevere to come but poorly out of such\n    an ordeal; as a rule, however, she escapes very easily, far more\n    easily, indeed, than the majority of the ladies of the court. In one\n    case we are clearly given to understand that her sole error, a\n    trivial one, has been one of thought. Now the _lais_ represent, as\n    is generally admitted, an early stage of romantic evolution, and\n    taken into consideration with the evidence of the earlier poems,\n    they certainly appear to strengthen the argument tentatively put\n    forward in my _Lancelot_, _e.g._ that the tradition of the queen\u2019s\n    faithlessness to her husband belonged to the _historic_ legend and\n    was, as such, preserved in the pseudo-chronicles; it had no\n    existence in the _romantic_ legend till introduced under the\n    influence of a special social condition, and in this its later form,\n    it is not to be regarded as a survival of the historic Modred story,\n    but as a later and independent development.\n\n[67]Cf. _Popular Studies_, No. 10 (Nutt), _The Romance Cycle of\n    Charlemagne and his Peers_, where I have pointed out the fundamental\n    differences between the cycles.\n\n[68]On this point, cf. Mr. Greg\u2019s review of my _Lancelot_ studies,\n    _Folk-Lore_, December 1901.\n\n\n               Edinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable\n\n\n\n\n                          Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\n--Copyright notice provided as in the original\u2014this e-text is public\n  domain in the country of publication.\n\n--Silently corrected palpable typos; left non-standard spellings and\n  dialect unchanged.\n\n--Compared text section headings to the Table of Contents; inserted\n  additional headings (but did not reword existing headings) to match\n  the Table of Contents.\n\n--Only in the text versions, delimited italicized or blackletter text in\n  _underscores_ (the HTML version reproduces the font form of the\n  printed book.)\n\n--Only in the text versions, preceded superscript characters by a caret\n  (as in d^a).","title":"The Three Days' Tournament: A Study in Romance and Folk-Lore: Being an Appendix to the Author's 'Legend of Sir Lancelot'","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":19179}