The whole character of the earlier _Lancelot_ story is strongly
reminiscent of a _lai_, and I see no reason to depart from the opinion
expressed in my _Lancelot_ ‘Studies,’ that the root of the whole
wonderful growth is to be sought in such a _lai_.
Nor do I see reason to doubt that this _lai_ may have been of
continental origin, and at the same time have taken this most important
step in development upon insular ground. I cannot agree with those
scholars who appear to regard the Channel as an impassable barrier to
communication previous to the date of Chrétien de Troyes, and the most
facile medium of intercourse immediately after that date!
For more than a century previous, _i.e._ from the days of Edward the
Confessor, intercourse between the English court and the north of France
had been frequent and continuous; for nearly a century the kings of
England had also been princes of France. When, therefore, we find, as we
do, that the materials for the development of a story existed on both
sides of the Channel, and that the story, in its completed form, is akin
to both continental and insular variants, forming, as it were, a link
between the two, and combining forms which are not known to meet
elsewhere, the conclusion that the process of evolution was not confined
to one country appears neither illogical nor unfounded.
I would, therefore, now suggest that we have solid grounds for supposing
that the story of Lancelot, starting as a Breton _lai_, and brought in
that form to England, became in these islands connected with a special
variant of a very widely diffused folk-tale. Having borrowed from this
tale certain adventures, it found its way back, in this enlarged form,
to the Continent, where the story from which it had borrowed being
equally well known, it underwent further development on the same lines.
I suspect that here the flying horses of the Celtic tale became
transformed into the normal steeds of the Three Days’ Tournament, though
the colour of the armour—green, red, and white—was at first retained.
But on which side of the Channel was the final and most important step,
the incorporation with the Arthurian cycle, taken? Of the various
versions of Guinevere’s abduction, the Melwas story exists only in an
insular text, the _Vita Gildæ_, and this is apparently connected with a
partly lost and entirely confused Welsh tradition. The Meleagant version
is by locality directly connected with Melwas; and the only extant
version of the Falerîn abduction tale came from England. I submit that
here again we have reasonable ground for the hypothesis that the
identification of Lancelot as Guinevere’s rescuer, and subsequently as
her lover, may be due to insular rather than continental development.
The question is, as will be seen, by no means an easy one, and I should
prefer to express no definite opinion as to the real bearing of the
evidence here adduced. There are, as I have shown, indications pointing
in opposite directions. The precise value and relation of these
indications will be better realised as we become more familiar with what
is at present a somewhat novel interpretation of the facts. In any case
it will be seen that the theory here advanced only affects the earlier
stages of the _Lancelot_ story, leaving untouched the question of its
development as part of the Arthurian romantic cycle. It affords us a
working hypothesis which may enable us to bridge the gulf between
Lancelot the independent hero (_Lanzelet_) and Lancelot the queen’s
lover (_Charrette_), a gulf which has hitherto presented a problem
baffling to the Arthurian student.
But is it not also apparent that, in the light of the evidence here
collected, the theory of an Anglo-Norman Arthurian tradition,
independent of, and anterior to, Chrétien’s poems should no longer be
contemptuously derided? Whatever may be the eventual verdict on the
evolution of the _Lancelot_ story, the examination of the various
romantic versions of the Tournament story, in the light of folk-lore
evidence, has, I think, made absolutely clear to any unprejudiced critic
that the _Cligés_ version cannot possibly be the source of either the
_Lanzelet_ or the _Ipomedon_, but represents a version further removed
from the original form, and in all probability dependent upon some
variant, or variants, of the _Lancelot_. And if this be the case in one
poem, and that the very poem in which the admirers of Chrétien assert
roundly that his independence is most clearly shown, are we not
justified in our hesitation as regards his other works?
In my _Lancelot_ ‘Studies’ I showed that Professor Foerster’s theory as
to the origin of the _Yvain_ would not bear the test of strict
examination; that evidence, both internal and external, could be adduced
in favour of the view that the tale was but a collection of _lais_, put
together and worked over by others before Chrétien gave the final touch
which converted them into a literary whole. Before long I hope to show,
what I have recently recognised as a fact capable of demonstration, that
the _Perceval_ ‘_Enfances_,’ so far from being the source of the other
versions, is but an incomplete and inferior version of a story, which in
its original and perfect form no longer exists, but is better preserved
elsewhere. _Erec_, so far, I have not examined, but I have little doubt
that the result of careful investigation will here be the same; certain
it is that the initial adventure, the chase of a fairy stag, represents
a superstition alive in these islands to this day. The trackers on
Dartmoor claim to be able to distinguish the ‘slot’ of the fairy deer
from among all others, and will solemnly warn the huntsmen of the
futility of following such a trail.
Those of us, and they are many, who entertain a profound respect, not
merely for M. Gaston Paris’ learning, but also for his keen critical
instinct, and what I can best express as ‘sense of atmosphere,’ have
hesitated, even though little evidence appeared to be forthcoming, to
dismiss lightly, not to say discourteously, a theory which had the
support of his authority; the foregoing pages will, I hope, show grounds
for believing that an investigation, conducted perhaps on somewhat
different lines to those hitherto in favour, will fully justify this
hesitation.
We are only on the threshold of Arthurian criticism, and till we have
thoroughly familiarised ourselves with the elementary conditions of the
problem before us, it is both premature and unscientific to expect to
obtain in any section of this wide field a result which can be claimed
as permanent. Thoroughness is an admirable quality; but the thoroughness
which consists in carefully and microscopically surveying a single part,
before we have ascertained the relation of that part to the whole, is
only too apt to result in throwing that whole hopelessly out of focus.
The time has not yet come when a final study of any part of the
Arthurian legend, based upon a comparison of all the texts, is possible
or indeed desirable. The different threads that form the shifting
pattern of the fabric are so interwoven that no one can as yet be
disentangled _beyond a certain point_ without injury to the whole.
Thus neither the _Gawain_, the _Perceval_, nor the _Lancelot_ stories
can at the present moment receive satisfactory and _final_ treatment. In
the advanced stages of Arthurian legendary development these three main
lines of tradition have become so entangled, have crossed and
complicated each other to such an extent, that it is only by following
what we may call a parallel method of study that we can hope to
determine their exact relationship to each other; while until that exact
relationship be accurately determined, a scientific study of the cycle,
as a whole, is impossible. There appear to me to be three possible lines
of investigation, any one of which will probably throw light on the
other two; while the results to be obtained from all three would go far
towards providing a sound and scientific basis for future inquiries.
These three are (_a_) The various versions of the Gawain Grail quest;
absolutely necessary if we desire to understand the development of the
Grail section of the cycle. (_b_) The _Perceval_ continuations; which
contain sections belonging to early and non-cyclic versions of the
stories affected, combined with sections drawn from later and cyclic
redactions. These texts will also throw light upon the small and
interesting cycle of the _Bel Inconnu_, which is connected with all the
three lines of tradition, and is important for all. (_c_) A comparative
study of the various _Lancelot_ versions, which will enable us to
disentangle the earlier _Perceval-Lancelot_ redactions from the later
_Galahad_ development.
But in this investigation there are certain principles which must be
kept clearly in view. We must remember that a cycle like the Arthurian
cycle, compounded largely of what we may call mythical and imaginative
elements, and largely devoid of historical basis, cannot be examined and
criticised on the same principles and by the same methods as can the
Charlemagne cycle, where historic conditions, though modified for
romantic purposes, have controlled and shaped the process of
development.[67]
In this latter case an appeal to documentary evidence, and a criticism
conducted largely on literary lines, is, by nature of the material to be
dealt with, entirely in its place; in the former, inasmuch as the
material of which it is composed belongs far less to history than to
that indefinable body we call popular tradition, which never finds more
than partial expression in literature, and yet maintains its character
practically unchanged throughout the centuries, we must follow a
different method.
Not that the historic element is to be neglected; far from it. On the
contrary, I would urge that greater attention be bestowed on certain
historic factors than has hitherto been the case. The Arthurian romances
do not, as do the Charlemagne, reflect more or less correctly certain
facts, or periods of history, but the circumstances and surroundings of
their origin may nevertheless have been more or less determined by
historic conditions, _i.e._ the influence exercised by the court and
policy of Henry II.
We are perfectly well aware that a feature of that monarch’s domestic
policy was his desire to conciliate the Welsh by a clever use of their
popular traditions. The alleged discovery of King Arthur’s tomb at
Glastonbury was, as most historians now recognise, merely an ingenious
move in the political game. To what extent he carried his encouragement
and adoption of Arthurian tradition we have perhaps hardly yet realised.
The fact that it was possible to publish in 1167 a correspondence
purporting to be between the King and Arthur in Avalon shows that if
Henry did not directly encourage the forgery, he at least saw no ground
for discouraging it, and was willing to play into the hands of any one
furthering this special line of conciliation. We know, as a matter of
literary evidence, that the manuscripts of a very large section of
Arthurian prose romance attribute their composition to the direct
command of the king; but so far we have not attempted to ascertain the
precise value to be placed on this recurring testimony. I believe myself
that a careful investigation into the literary patronage exercised by
Henry, and his interest in Arthurian traditions, would yield results
somewhat disconcerting to the adherents of the Continental School.
Of the value of folk-lore and folk-tale as witnesses in the case of a
group of stories based largely upon popular tradition, and in their
earlier stages of evolution the property of popular story-tellers, we
are only slowly becoming aware. But the study of story-transmission has
in these last years made immense strides, and may now claim to be fairly
based upon sound scientific principles. The extent to which such a
study, accurately and carefully carried on, may reflect light upon
allied subjects, such as the Arthurian cycle, has yet to be realised. It
may be hoped that these pages will lend encouragement to the following
up of this special line of investigation.
But there is a danger in our path. Admiration for the learning and
indefatigable industry of German scholars has, I fear, caused too many
of us to erect into a fetich the result of their labours, and to hold
ourselves thereby absolved from the toil of first-hand investigation.
This is to render no true service to the cause of scholarship; no one
man, no group of men, may claim to be infallible. The result of recent
investigation into the value and correctness of Dr. Sommer’s _Studies on
the Sources of Malory_,[68] a book which for ten years past has been
unhesitatingly accepted in scholarly circles as a reliable authority,
should be an object lesson to all of us in the necessity of caution, and
the individual responsibility which rests upon each to ascertain
independently, so far as it be possible, the correctness and solidity of
the ground upon which we found our arguments and our conclusions.
Careful and systematic work, with, from time to time, the revision and
comparison of results, only to be attained by publication, will, I
believe, before very long, enable us to place the criticism of the
Arthurian cycle upon a really satisfactory basis. At present it is vain
to hope that any one of us can produce, in this particular line of
literary investigation, a _magnum opus_ that shall be beyond the
necessity of revision, and sealed with the stamp of permanent and
enduring value.