I
_Sul ne sai pas de mentir lart_
_Walter Map reset ben sa part._
_Ipomedon_, fo. 82, ll. 29-30.
These words of the author of the _Ipomedon_ were, some years ago,
commented upon by Mr. Ward in his valuable _Catalogue of Romances in the
British Museum_, vol. i. He there remarks that the allusion is
especially valuable as being the direct ascription, by a contemporary,
of the character of romance-writer to Walter Map, and that in apparent
connection with the romance most persistently attributed to him—the
_Prose Lancelot_.
The suggestive remarks of Mr. Ward do not appear hitherto to have
attracted the attention they deserve. Recently, having occasion to write
a brief notice of Walter Map, they came, for the first time, under my
notice, and, taken in connection with certain points of the _Lancelot_
study in which I had for some time been engaged, assumed an unexpected
importance. It became evident to me that the whole question of the
connection of the _Ipomedon_ with Arthurian literature, and the light
which the words of the author might throw upon the relation to each
other of different forms of the same story, was well worth study; and
might eventually be of material assistance in determining the much
debated question of the position of Chrétien de Troyes in the Arthurian
cycle.
In the following pages I propose to examine, first, the exact nature and
value of the evidence of the _Ipomedon_ as regards Arthurian tradition;
second, its bearing upon the versions of a popular incident in
romance—the appearance of a knight at a tournament on three consecutive
days, in the disguise of three different suits of armour—especially with
relation to the versions of the _Prose Lancelot_, the _Lanzelet_ of
Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, and the _Cligés_ of Chrétien de Troyes.
To begin with the _Ipomedon_. As is probably known to most scholars, the
scene of this story is laid in the south of Europe—Sicily, Calabria,
Apulia—and the names of the characters are largely borrowed from
classical sources. The poem relates at considerable length the wooing of
the Princess of Calabria, known as _La Fière_, by Ipomedon, son of the
King of Apulia. (In the second part of the poem the hero’s father is
dead, and he is, himself, king.) The lady has made a vow to wed none but
the bravest of knights. Ipomedon, disguised as her cup-bearer, wins her
love, and at a three days’ tournament, in a varying armour of white,
red, and black, wins her hand, but disappears without claiming it, under
the pretext that he has not won sufficient fame to satisfy her pride. In
the second part of the poem the lady is threatened by an unwelcome
suitor, in the person of a hideous giant. Ipomedon, aware of her plight,
disguises himself as a fool, and goes to her uncle’s court, knowing that
she will send thither for aid. He demands from the king the gift of the
first combat that shall offer, which is granted as a mere joke. On the
appearance of the messenger sent by _La Fière_—the favourite friend of
the princess—Ipomedon claims the fulfilment of the king’s pledge, much
to the disgust of the maiden, who will have nothing to do with him at
first, but whose confidence he wins by his valiant deeds on the journey,
defeats and slays the giant; and hindered from evasion by her gallant
cousin, who proves to be his own unknown brother, finally marries _La
Fière_, and, we learn, is eventually slain with his brother before
Thebes.
The author of this poem calls himself Hue de Rotelande, and says that he
lives at Credehulle, which Mr. Ward identifies with Credenhill, near
Hereford. After completing the _Ipomedon_ he wrote a sequel,
_Prothesilaus_, which he dedicated to his patron, Gilbert Fitz-Baderon,
Lord of Monmouth. This Gilbert, the only one of his family so named, was
Lord of Monmouth certainly from 1176 to 1190-91, and may have succeeded
to the dignity earlier, as the last mention of his father is in 1165-66;
but the payment by Gilbert of a fine for trespassing in the royal
forests in 1176 is the first mention we have of him. As in the
_Ipomedon_ Hue refers to the siege of Rouen in 1174, it is clear that
both his poems fall between that date and 1190, the year of Gilbert’s
death, but we cannot date them more exactly.[2] It is, however, certain
that he wrote his poems on English ground, consequently it follows as a
matter of course that any incident of Arthurian romances to which he may
allude must have been known in England at that date.
Now what are the indications of familiarity with Arthurian tradition
which we find in the _Ipomedon_? Setting aside for the present the Three
Days’ Tournament, the main subject of our study, we may point out
certain other incidents which have attracted the attention of scholars.
Professor Kölbing,[3] in his study of the English versions of the poem,
remarks justly that every reader must be struck with the close
resemblance between the circumstances under which, in the second part of
the poem, Ipomedon undertakes the defence of _La Fière_ and the opening
of the _Bel Inconnu_ poems.[4] It may be pointed out that while in the
first instance the parallel is with the English rather than with the
French version, _i.e._, Ipomedon, like Libeaus Desconus, demands the
_first combat_ that shall offer, while Bel Inconnu simply asks that the
first request he shall make be granted, the feature that the maiden
leaves the court without waiting for her unwelcome defender agrees with
the French rather than with the English version: in the latter both
depart together. As in all romances of the _Bel Inconnu_ cycle, the
messenger is accompanied by a dwarf, who endeavours to induce a more
gentle treatment of the knight, and as in all she continues to flout the
hero till confuted by his deeds of valour. In the _Ipomedon_, certainly
the conversion is more complete, as she offers the hero her love, if he
will renounce the quest and accompany her to her own land. It is
impossible to read the _Ipomedon_ and to doubt that the author was
familiar with the story of Gawain’s unnamed son.[5]
Again, the seneschal of King Meleager, Cananeus, Caymys, or Kaenius, as
his name is variously spelt, with his sharp tongue and overbearing
manner, is strongly reminiscent of Sir Kay; and the parallel is further
brought out in the encounter with Ipomedon, where that hero thrusts him
from his steed, ‘_tope over tayle_,’ breaking in one version his
shoulder-blade, in another his arm.[6] This should be compared with
Lanzelet’s joust with Kay, and its result ‘_er stach hern Keiin so das
im die füeze harte hô ûf ze berge kaften und dem zalehaften daz houbet
gein der erde fuor_;[7] also with _Morien_,[8] where Arthur reminds Kay
of the result of his joust with Perceval—‘_Hine stac u dat u wel sceen
dat gi braect u canefbeen, ende dede u oec met onneren beide die vote
opwerd keren_.’
Professor Kölbing also points out that the position held by Cabaneus,
nephew of King Meleager, is analogous to that of Gawain, in the
Arthurian cycle (to which I would also add that the name of _La Fière_
recalls that of _L’Orgueilleuse de Logres_ in Chrétien), and decides
that the romance, as a whole, ‘_schliesst sich nach tendenz
characterzeichnung und handlung diese klasse (i.e. dem artus-kreise)
unverkennbar an_.’[9] That is, the _genre_ of composition was by 1174-90
so well established that it was freely imitated in romances entirely
unconnected with the cycle by subject-matter.
When, therefore, in direct connection with an adventure of which several
versions are preserved in the Arthurian cycle—the Three Days’
Tournament—we find the author of the poem excusing himself for somewhat
embroidering his tale, and quoting Walter Map as one who practises the
same art, our minds naturally turn to the romances of that cycle, and to
Map’s reputed connection with Arthurian story.
As is well known, the question as to the share which may rightly be
assigned to Walter Map in the evolution of the Arthurian legend is one
of the problems of modern criticism. At one time or another, with the
exception of the _Merlin_ and the _Tristan_, all the great prose
romances of the cycle, the _Lancelot_, in its completed form, the _Grand
S. Graal_, _Queste_, and _Mort Artur_, have been assigned to him,[10]
and till quite recently writers on early English literature did not
scruple to accept the tradition. Probably even to-day the majority would
name Walter Map as the populariser, if not the inventor, of the Grail
legend. Those, however, who are familiar at first hand with the romances
in question have long since realised that in their present form they
represent the result of a long period of accretion, and have undergone
many redactions; they cannot possibly, as they now stand, be held to be
the work of any one writer, certainly not of one who took so active and
leading a part in public affairs as did Map. Further, his own statement,
in the famous words recorded by Giraldus Cambrensis, to whom they were
addressed, ‘_Multa_ _scripsistis et multum adhuc scribitis et nos multa
diximus. Vos scripta dedistis et nos verba_,’ with the application that
follows, have been held by Professor Birch-Hirschfeld and other scholars
to be a direct denial on his part of any literary activity.[11] At the
same time we know Map did write, and was interested in romantic and
popular tales, further that he had the reputation of being a poet,[12]
and the persistence of the tradition connecting him with the Arthurian
cycle can hardly be set aside. The question is, do these words of Hue de
Rotelande throw any light upon this disputed point? Can we hope by the
aid of this contemporary of Map’s to arrive at a conclusion which may
assist us in determining the real nature of his contribution to the
development of this famous cycle, and will the ascertaining of this fact
help us, as the definite establishment of a single fact often does, to
solve other problems closely connected therewith? Mr. Ward, when he
wrote the article to which I have referred above, expressed a decided
opinion on this point; and it appears to me that by following up the
lines of research there indicated we shall attain results far more
important in themselves, and far more startling in their ultimate effect
than he then suspected.
First, let us see exactly what Hue says. The passage in question (which
will not be found in the translations) occurs at the end of the first
portion of the poem. The author has just been relating how his hero, who
is living at King Meleager’s court, in the assumed character of
body-servant to the queen, scouts the idea of attending the tournament
which is to decide who shall wed _La Fière_ of Calabria, loudly
expressing his preference for the pleasures of the chase. Each morning
he leaves the court before daylight, announcing his departure by loud
blasts of the horn; but having reached the forest, where his servant
awaits him with steed and armour, he sends his ‘Master,’ Tholomy, to
hunt in his stead; and arming himself each day in a different suit of
armour, white, red, and black, proceeds to the tournament, where he
carries off the prize for valour, unhorsing all the principal knights on
either side, even to the king himself, and his valiant nephew Cabaneus.
Each evening he returns to the forest, reassumes his hunter’s garb, and
with the spoils of the chase won by Tholomy takes his way to the court,
where he vaunts the skill of his hounds above that of the unknown
knight, and is roundly mocked for his lack of prowess by the ladies.
After the third day he leaves secretly, to return to his own land,
sending to the king, by the hand of a messenger, the spoils of his three
days’ victory. The seneschal, Cananeus, volunteers to bring him back,
and is punished for his officious interference, as related above.[13] At
the conclusion of this episode, Hue states that he is not lying—at least
not more than a little—and if he be ‘’tis but the custom of the day, and
all the blame should not be laid upon him, Walter Map is just as bad.’
_‘Ore entendez seignurs mut ben_
_Hue dit ke il ni ment de ren_
_Fors aukune feiz neent mut_
_Nuls ne se pot garder par tut_
_En mendre afere mut suvent_
_Un bon renable hom mesprent_
_El mund nen ad un sul si sage_
_Ki tuz iurz seit en un curage_
_Kar cist secles lad ore en sei_
_Nel metez mie tut sur mei_
_Sul ne sai pas de mentir lart_
_Walter Map reset ben sa part.’_
—P. 82, ll. 19-30.
Now shall we understand this merely as a general allusion, without any
special significance, or was there anything in the story which Hue had
just been relating which might reasonably be supposed to have brought
Map to his mind? Mr. Ward very pertinently draws attention to the fact
that this appearance at a tournament on successive days, in different
armour, is precisely an adventure attributed to Lancelot, and the
_Lancelot_ is the romance most persistently attributed to Map. The
parallel to which Mr. Ward refers is that contained in the earlier part
of the _Prose Lancelot_.[14]
Lancelot first appears at Arthur’s court in white armour: he is known as
‘le Blanc Chevalier.’ On his first absence after receiving knighthood he
is taken prisoner by the Lady of Malehaut, who detains him in her
castle. A tournament, of a very warlike nature, taking place between
Arthur and Galehault, the lady releases Lancelot, who, disguised in red
armour, performs deeds of surpassing valour. He returns to prison, and
on the encounter between the kings being renewed, again appears, this
time in black. Finally, he reveals himself to the queen, and tells her
that all the feats of arms he has achieved in the characters of white,
red, and black knight were undertaken in her honour.
The general resemblance is, as Mr. Ward remarks, too striking to be
overlooked; though, as he does _not_ remark, there are certain
differences which seem to indicate that the version of the _Prose
Lancelot_ has undergone some modification. Thus, there are not three
consecutive days, but Lancelot’s appearance in the three characters
occurs at widely separated intervals. Further, Mr. Ward does not seem to
be aware that this is but one instance out of three in which the same,
or a similar, adventure is attributed to Lancelot.
In the latter part of the _Prose Lancelot_, the section represented by
the Dutch translation, we find Arthur holding a tournament, which has
been suggested by Guinevere with the view of recalling Lancelot, who has
long been absent, to court, and heightening his fame. Lancelot returns
secretly, unknown to all but the queen, who sends him a message to come
and discomfit the knights who are jealous of him. Lancelot appears in
_red_ armour and overthrows them all. The queen demands another
tournament in three days’ time, when Lancelot appears as a _white_
knight, with the same result. After this he reveals himself to
Arthur.[15]
But the best parallel is that contained in the _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von
Zatzikhoven. Here Lanzelet makes his first appearance at court at a
three days’ tournament; the first day dressed in _green_, the second in
_white_, the third in _red_; overthrows all opposed to him, including
Kay,[16] and takes his departure, without revealing himself.
With these repeated parallels before us, it seems impossible to doubt
that when Hue de Rotelande referred to Walter Map, in connection with
the tournament episode of _Ipomedon_, he had in his mind a version of
the _Lancelot_, which also contained such a story, and which was
attributed to the latter writer.
But what could this version have been? Certainly not the _Prose
Lancelot_ in its present form. As we remarked before, this romance is
the result of slow growth and successive redactions, and the two
parallels contained in it bear marks of modification and dislocation. In
my recent studies on the Lancelot legend[17] I have pointed out that in
the process of evolution it certainly passed through a stage in which it
was closely connected with, and affected by, the _Perceval_ story.
Gradually the popularity of the hero of the younger tale obscured that
of the elder; and in the _Lancelot_, as we now have it, the traces of
_Perceval_ influence have almost disappeared from the majority of the
printed versions, though interesting survivals are still to be found in
certain manuscripts and in the Dutch translation. Now one of the best
known adventures attributed to Perceval is that in which the sight of
blood-drops on new-fallen snow—caused by a bird having been wounded, or
slain, by a hawk—recalls to his mind the lady of his love, and plunges
him into a trance; in which he is rudely attacked by Kay, who would
bring him by force to court. He retaliates by unhorsing the seneschal
with such force that he breaks, in one version both arms, in others, an
arm and a leg.[18] It should also be noted that in the _Peredur_ a raven
has alighted on the slain bird, and we have the three colours, black,
red, and white, recalling the lady’s raven hair, white skin, and crimson
lips and cheeks.[19]
Taking into consideration the proved connection existing between the
_Perceval_ and the earlier forms of the _Lancelot_, it would seem most
probable that a version of the tournament which included a similar
discomfiture of the seneschal would belong to an earlier stage of
evolution than one in which Kay did not appear. As I have pointed out
above,[20] the _Lanzelet_ version not only includes Kay’s overthrow, but
recounts it in words that forcibly recall the _Perceval_ episode.
It also seems probable that it was such a form which was known to the
author of the _Ipomedon_, as he makes the discomfiture of the seneschal
Cananeus, whose resemblance to Kay has already been pointed out, follow
immediately upon the tournament episode.
So far, then, as the priority of existing versions is concerned, we
must, I think, give a verdict in favour of the _Lanzelet_, though with
the reservation that even here there has been, as we shall presently
see, a certain modification of the story as known to Hue.
What now do we know of the source of the _Lanzelet_? From the statement
of the author,[21] we learn that the original of this poem was a French
book, ‘_daz welsche buoch von Lanzelete_,’ brought to Germany by Hugo de
Morville, one of the hostages who, in 1194, replaced Richard Cœur de
Lion in the prison of Leopold of Austria. Thus we know that the French
book must have been prior to that date, but so far no one has detected
any reference that would enable us to fix the period of composition more
accurately. But the character of the romance as we possess it—a
collection of episodes, many of them of marked folk-lore character,
loosely strung together, and harmonising but ill with each other—makes
it highly probable that the constituent parts of the romance had
possessed an independent existence prior to being strung together on the
slender thread of the hero’s personality. It is therefore perfectly
possible that the French source of the _Lanzelet_ was in existence
before Hue de Rotelande wrote the _Ipomedon_; it is more than possible,
indeed, as we shall see, a fact of almost certain demonstration—that the
adventure of the Three Days’ Tournament had been ascribed to Lancelot,
certainly by 1160, and most probably before that date.
In the Didot _Perceval_, a romance which probably formed part of a very
early cyclic redaction of the Arthurian legend, and one in which
Lancelot plays a very subordinate rôle, we find an allusion to ‘_le fìz
à la fille à la femme de Malehot_,’[22] which seems to suggest that even
at that comparatively early stage the incident had undergone the
modification familiar to us in the _Prose Lancelot_. In the result, I
think we shall find that it formed one of the first steps in the
development of the _Lancelot_ story.[23]
So far as the evidence of the _Ipomedon_ goes it suggests, if it does
not absolutely prove, that at the period when that poem was written
there was current a story which ascribed to Lancelot the adventures of
the Three Days’ Tournament, in a form which, as might be expected in any
early Lancelot version, showed traces of the influence of the
_Perceval_, and which was popularly attributed to Walter Map. Of the
versions which we now possess, that of _Lanzelet_ best corresponds to
these conditions.