But in _Cligés_, and in a minor degree in the _Charrette_, we are

on different ground: the geography is that neither of Wales nor of

Brittany. Here we have Dover, Wallingford, Winchester, Windsor,

Southampton, Oxford, Shoreham, Bath, London; while we note a marked

omission of the distinctively _Arthurian_ localities. The _Charrette_

opens at _Carlion_, which it, however, apparently confuses with

_Camelot_.

Now this is surely significant. If Chrétien had a free hand in the

arrangement of his stories, if they were really compounded of elements

drawn from all sources and thus combined for the first time, why did

he shift his _mise-en-scène_ backwards and forwards in this curious

manner? Why turn from the geography of _Erec_ to that of _Cligés_

and the _Charrette_, only to revert to his first love in _Yvain_ and

_Perceval_? Is it not most probable that in those three stories, at

least, he was dealing with traditional matter, the localising of which

had already been effected?

In the case of _Cligés_ and the _Charrette_ it seems not improbable

that closer investigation may find grounds to support the theory of

a possible Anglo-Norman transmission, which would account for the

southern England geography.[90]

A point on which we may well lay stress is, that the independence of

Chrétien as a story-teller does not stand or fall with the existence

or non-existence of Anglo-Norman Arthurian poems. Their importance, in

relation to Chrétien, may easily be exaggerated by those unfamiliar

with the character of oral tales. If we once accept as a principle

the well-ascertained fact that such stories have a tendency to fall

into a set form, a fixed sequence of incident and detail, would

always be related in practically the same words, and, moreover, could

well contain more than one _sagen motif_, we shall realise that the

necessity of postulating a written source as explanation for the

agreement in sequence, incident, and phrase, becomes infinitely less

pressing.[91]

To my mind, the correspondences between the Welsh Arthurian tales and

Chrétien's three poems in question offer no proof that the former

repose directly on these poems as basis; but I consider it extremely

probable that many of the perplexing features of the question--_e.g._

the occurrence in the Welsh stories, and in translations of Chrétien's

poems, of details not to be found in the best MSS. of those poems--may

be accounted for by copyists and translators familiar with an oral

version of the tale, filling in details which Chrétien had either

never heard, or had purposely omitted. If we postulate, as from the

character of the stories we are justified in doing, a very widespread

knowledge of those tales, apart from any written source, we shall not

be surprised at the existence of a large number of minor variants; the

impossibility of explaining which on purely literary grounds drives

Professor Foerster and those who share his views to the unsatisfactory

expedient of multiplying MS. 'families.'[92]

To sum up the considerations advanced in the preceding pages, I think

we are justified in saying that the real _crux_ of Arthurian romance

is the period _before_ and not _after_ Chrétien de Troyes. Not that

the latter period does not offer us puzzles: it does, many and great,

but when we arrive at some definite and _proven_ conclusion as to

the materials with which the earliest compilers of metrical romance

were dealing, we shall have made a great step towards unravelling the

problem of their successors. So far, I do not think we have arrived

at such a conclusion; many theories are in the field, but none seem

entirely to meet the conditions of the question. My own conviction is

that, whether oral or written, Arthurian romantic tradition is of much

older date than we have hitherto been inclined to believe.

To arrive at any solid result in our investigations there are certain

principles which we must always keep in view, _e.g._, if the Arthurian

tradition consists (as it admittedly does) largely of folk-lore and

mythic elements, it must, so far as these elements are concerned, be

examined and criticised on methods recognised and adopted by experts

in those branches of knowledge--and not treated on literary lines and

literary evidence alone. Thus it is essential to determine the original

_character_ of a story before proceeding to criticise its literary

_form_. To treat stories of folk-lore origin from an exclusively

literary point of view is to render a false conclusion not merely

probable but _certain_.

In every case where an oral source appears probable, or even possible,

we must ascertain, from the evidence of experts in story-transmission,

what are the characteristics of tales so told, and what is the nature

of the correspondence existing between tales of common origin but of

independent development.

The evidence of proper names is valuable only in a secondary degree,

as testifying to the place or places of redaction. But the older the

story the less valuable they are as indications of original _source_,

the oldest tales having a strong tendency to anonymity. So we find that

in the _lais_ the older versions only speak of 'a king,' the later

identify that king with Arthur.[93]

If we take these elementary tests, and apply them to those of the

poems of Chrétien de Troyes for which a traditional origin may safely

be postulated, we shall I think arrive at the conclusion that there

is little ground for ascribing _inventive_ genius to the poet, whose

superiority over his contemporaries was _quantitative_ rather than

_qualitative_. He differed from them in degree, not in kind; he had a

keener sense of artistic composition, a more excellent literary style.

Given the same material as his contemporaries he produced a superior

result; when the material was deficient, as in the _Charrette_, the

result was proportionately inferior.

There is no necessity to belittle him as '_ein sklavischer

Übersetzer_'; there is no ground that I can see for crediting him with

an inventive genius foreign to his age. The truth lies, as it so often

does, midway between the two extremes.

In this connection I may well quote Dr. Schofield's sober and carefully

reasoned conclusion to his _Study of the Lays of Graalent and Lanval_:

'The process of combining separate episodes to make an extended poem,

we may well believe, had begun before the time of Marie's contemporary,

Chrétien de Troyes. He simply carried it one step farther, and devoted

his great literary talent to presenting in more attractive form,

with more modern courtly flourishes, the stories already existing.

Doubtless he himself made new combinations, and in so doing was

guided by a poet's sense of appropriateness, choosing such general and

subordinate episodes as would contribute best to the development of his

hero's character.[94] To him we must certainly ascribe the interesting

psychological discussions so numerous in his works. But still his power

of invention is not great. His art is shown above all in the way in

which he combines and arranges separate stories, or embellishes those

already told at considerable length.'[95]

These words, I believe, state in generous terms the position which

scientific criticism will ultimately assign to Chrétien de Troyes: they

represent the very utmost that can reasonably be claimed for him.

* * * * *

Herr Brugger's article, referred to on p. 66, did not come into my

hands until these studies were in proof. Inasmuch as the theory

regarding the Arthurisation of the _lais_ stated in this chapter and

in chapter ii. might lead some readers to the conclusion that my views

are identical with those set forth in the article in question, I think

it well to state (_a_) that I only postulate of certain early metrical

romances an origin which Herr Brugger apparently attributes to _all_

Arthurian romances, prose or verse; (_b_) that when Herr Brugger

speaks of _origin_ he uses the word loosely, and in a _secondary_

sense, whereas I use it in a _primary_; _e.g._ to say that a story

which reached French writers through a Breton source may therefore

be accurately described as of Breton origin is, in my opinion, both

inaccurate and misleading, especially in the face of Professor

Foerster's strongly reiterated denials of an insular Arthurian

_romantic_ tradition. The immediate source of the French writers does

not solve for us the problem of the origins of Arthurian tradition; it

is a mistake to employ an argument, or use terminology, confounding

two distinct questions.

CHAPTER VI

THE PROSE LANCELOT--THE 'ENFANCES' OF THE HERO

In the preceding chapters we have examined certain romances of the

_Lancelot_ cycle lying outside the great prose compilation which

represents its final form. The _popular_ 'Lancelot' legend was the

legend as told in the prose _Lancelot_, and the _Grail_ romances

therewith incorporated. It is with these romances we must now deal.

The elements composing this vast compilation (which in its completed

form appears to have aimed at embracing the entire Arthurian cycle

in all its ramifications) are so diverse that it would, under any

circumstances, be a matter of great difficulty to decide how best

to analyse and examine the composite structure; and this initial

difficulty is much increased by the fact that so far the material at

our disposal, abundant though it be, is in an inchoate and unorganised

condition. There is no critical edition of the prose _Lancelot_; and as

we shall see in the following studies, not merely the MSS.,

but the numerous printed editions derived from the MSS.,

differ so widely from each other that until a critical text based on

a comparison of _all_ the available versions is in our hands, it will

be quite impossible to do more than form a tentative hypothesis, or

advance a guarded suggestion as to the gradual growth and formation of

the completed legend.

I would therefore entreat any readers of this and the subsequent

chapters to bear in mind that I am not attempting any critical study

of the prose _Lancelot_, as a whole--the time for such a study has not

yet come--but rather I am examining (_a_) certain points of the prose

legend which are of capital importance in themselves, or must have

existed in some form even in a shorter version of the story, _e.g._,

such as Lancelot's youth, and first appearance at court, his relations

with Guinevere, and connection with the Grail story; (_b_) certain

interesting variants in the texts we possess, variants which are of

the greatest importance to English scholars as clearing up many of the

difficulties connected with the character of the source used by Malory

in his compilation.[96] My aim is to prepare the way for a critical

examination of the prose _Lancelot_ rather than to myself offer such a

critical examination.

In a previous chapter I hazarded the suggestion that the original germ

of the whole story might prove to be a _lai_ recounting the theft of

a child by a water-fairy, and in spite of the unwieldy dimensions to

which the tale has grown, I think this suggestion will be found to hold

good.

As I hinted above, the _Lancelot_ legend is not confined to the

prose _Lancelot_, but it has affected romances originally entirely

unconnected with our hero, such as the _Merlin_ and the _Tristan_. In

the earliest forms of the story neither of these tales have anything

whatever to do with Lancelot; in the latest versions _Tristan_ has been

practically incorporated into the _Lancelot_, while _Merlin_ forms an

elaborate introduction to it.

Though it has undergone a certain amount of modification, the

tradition at the base of the _Merlin_ and prose _Lancelot_ appears

to be identical with that related by the _Lanzelet_. The names Ban

of Benoic and Pant of Genewîs are quite near enough to represent the

same original, probably modified in the _Lanzelet_ by translation into

another tongue. The story of the king driven from his kingdom and dying

of a broken heart is the same, _au fond_, though the _motif_ has been

varied, and in the prose _Lancelot_ the king's misfortunes are caused

by treachery, and not by his own misgovernment. This is a very natural

modification, and one likely to be caused by the growing popularity

of the son, which would have a tendency to react favourably on the

character of the father.[97]

It is clear that both versions of the _Merlin_ story know the

_Lancelot_ legend in its completed form. Thus the Vulgate _Merlin_

knows of his two cousins, Lionel and Bohort, whose introduction into

the legend marks that secondary stage, when not merely the hero, but

the hero's race in its entirety, is selected for special honour.[98]

In the Ordinary, or Vulgate, _Merlin_, the enchanter is never brought

into direct contact with Lancelot, but is betrayed to his doom before

the birth of that hero takes place. In the _Suite de Merlin_, however,

he and his treacherous love visit the castle of King Ban, and see

the child, whose future fame Merlin prophesies; while the lady is

identified with the fairy who brings up Lancelot.[99]

The _Suite_ also refers in a prophetic manner to certain subsequent

feats of Lancelot, and introduces the personages of the _Tristan_

story, such as Morholt (Le Morhout),[100] a clear proof that it is

posterior to the incorporation of this legend with the Arthurian cycle.

Of the two _Merlin_ versions, the _Suite_ therefore appears to

be the later, but the Vulgate _Merlin_ also refers to the Grail

romances,[101] so that it seems clear that both have been redacted

subsequent to the completion of the _Lancelot_ story.

To return to the prose _Lancelot_. The story of the hero's youth, while

agreeing in the main with that told by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, is yet

marked by important modifications and additions. The brothers Lionel

and Bohort appear on the scene, and become Lancelot's companions,

while the whole conception of the kingdom of the Lady of the Lake

is radically modified. It is no longer a _Meide-lant_; Lancelot has

knight-attendants as well as cousin-playfellows, indeed, save for

the _Mirage_, which counterfeits a lake and thus keeps off unwelcome

intruders, the country is to all intents and purposes an ordinary

earthly kingdom.[102]

When the lad (who is always called by his protectress _Fils du roi_,

and has a more than adequate idea of his own importance) leaves the

kingdom, which he does in order to seek knighthood at Arthur's hands,

he goes gorgeously equipped, with armour, steed, and retinue of

servants.

But his arrival at Arthur's court is most interesting and suggestive.

Arthur meets him without the town, and consigns him to the care of

_Ywain_, who, the next day, leads him to the palace through a crowd of

spectators eager to look upon his beauty.

In a previous chapter I have commented upon the strong resemblance

between the account of Lanzelet's entry into the world, as described

by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, and that of Parzival, as related by Wolfram

von Eschenbach. Both alike are ignorant of knightly skill and customs;

both are unable to control their steeds, they cannot even hold the

bridle; both are alike fair to look upon, but apparently foolish

(_tumbe_); both are ignorant of their name and parentage. Different as

the account of the prose _Lancelot_ is from this, and no difference

could well be wider, yet here again the _Lancelot_ falls into line

with the _Perceval_ story, and again in the form peculiar to Wolfram

von Eschenbach; for there, too, Parzival makes his entry on foot,

through a crowd eager to behold his beauty, and his guide is the squire

_Iwanet_.[103]

It will be remembered that in Chrétien's version of the story

Perceval's entry is made under quite different circumstances. He rides

into the hall, and advances so close to the king that his horse's head

touches him, and subsequently he refuses to dismount.

The correspondence of the name Ywain=Iwanet is also significant. In

the case of Wolfram's poem it has been generally concluded that the

name was a diminutive of _Iwein_ or _Iwan_, and therefore distinct

from the name Chrétien gives to Gawain's squire who aids Perceval to

disarm his fallen foe--_Yonet_. Hertz, in his recent translation of the

_Parzival_,[104] takes this view, though he would differentiate the

Ywain referred to from King Urien's famous son, and in my translation

of the poem I adopted the same view. But further study has led me to

doubt this solution. I now think it more probable that the name is in

both cases the same, _i.e._ a form of the Breton _Yonec_, which we

find with the varying spelling, _Iwenec_ and _Yonet_.[105] Thus both

Chrétien and Wolfram refer to the same character; and the compiler

of the prose _Lancelot_ probably knew the _Perceval_ story under a

form analogous rather to Wolfram than to Chrétien. Whether the form

_Ywain_ was adopted through a mistake, or from a desire to substitute

a well-known hero for an obscure squire, it is impossible to say, in

any case the correspondence, though less striking than the similar

passages of the _Lanzelet_, is worth noting.[106]

Again we find that Guinevere, failing to obtain an answer from the

youth, who is struck dumb by her beauty, makes some contemptuous

remarks as to his lack of sense, and leaves the hall. This may be

compared with _Parzival_, Book III. ll. 988-9.[107]

A further indication of contact with the _Perceval_ romances is

afforded by the love-trances which overtake the hero at the most

inconvenient moment, and are repeated _ad nauseam_ in the most clumsy

and inartistic manner. It is noticeable that on the occasion of the

first attack (in the case of Lancelot one can only regard these trances

as an intermittent malady) the knight is clad in red armour and leans

on his spear--as does Perceval when he sees the blood-drops on the

snow. In the prose _Lancelot_ it is invariably the sight, and not the

memory, of Guinevere which causes the trance, a far less poetical

conception than that of the _Perceval_.

But in face of the passage quoted by M. Paulin Paris, in his

translation of the prose _Lancelot_, probably few will contend

that the story of _Perceval_ was not anterior to, and well-known by

the compiler of, the first mentioned romance. _Et le grant conte de

Lancelot convient repairier en la fin à Perceval qui est chiés et la

fin de tos les contes ès autres chevaliers. Et tout sont branches

de lui, qu'il acheva la grant queste. Et li contes Perceval meismes

est une branche del haut conte del Graal qui est chiés de tos les

contes._[108]

We should note here that when this particular passage was written the

writer evidently knew nothing of Galahad as the Grail Winner, though he

knew the _Lancelot_ story in an advanced stage. We shall have occasion

to refer to this later on.

In the account of Lancelot's first appearance at court we find an

incident which appears to connect the story with a cycle of poems

bearing a curious resemblance to the _Perceval_ cycle--the _Bel

Inconnu_ poems. Immediately after the hero has received knighthood, as

they sit at meat in the hall, a messenger arrives, sent by the 'Dame

de Nohan,'[109] asking for a champion to aid her against the King

of Northumberland. Lancelot (whose name we must remember is not yet

revealed, and who is referred to by the compiler as _Le Beau Varlet_)

at once requests that the adventure be given to him, and, though Arthur

demurs on account of his youth and inexperience, insists that he has a

right to it, as the first boon he has claimed since he was knighted.

It is under precisely similar circumstances that the hero of the _Bel

Inconnu_ stories undertakes his first adventure.

Others have been struck by this resemblance, and M. Philipot, in his

review of Dr. Schofield's _Studies on the Libeaus Desconus_,[110]

maintains that the _Lancelot_ story (more particularly in the version

known to Ulrich von Zatzikhoven) is the elder of the two, and the

source of the parallel adventure of the _Bel Inconnu_ group.

With this view I cannot agree. I have elsewhere[111] given reasons for

holding the true order of the _Enfances_ to be as follows, _Perceval_,

_Le Bel Inconnu_, _Lancelot_, and to this view I adhere. We must

remember that the French original of the _Lanzelet_ must in any case be

prior to 1194; how much earlier we have no means of deciding, but the

_Lanzelet_ has points of contact with both the _Perceval_ (Enfances)

and the _Bel Inconnu_ (Fier Baiser) story. Further, the prose

_Lancelot_, though differing very widely from Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's

poem, yet, as we see, also offers parallels both to _Perceval_ and _Le

Bel Inconnu_; such parallels being entirely different from those of the

_Lanzelet_. To assert that these stories borrowed from the _Lancelot_

would involve the existence, at an early date, of a fully developed and

widely diffused _Lancelot_ legend, a conclusion which the absence of

all reference to the hero in the earlier Arthurian romances forbids.

To my mind, when we have three separate cycles of romance closely

connected with each other, if we desire to discover which is the oldest

of the stories we should ask in the first instance, in which of the

stories are the incidents common to all the essence, in which are

they the accidents, of the tale. It is quite clear that they are not

essential to the _Lancelot_ story. The characteristics of ignorance,

simplicity, and headlong impulsiveness attributed to him by Ulrich

von Zatzikhoven, are entirely foreign to his character as elsewhere

represented; even in the _Lanzelet_ they are promptly discarded: but

they _are_ the very essence of Perceval's character, he, and no other,

is the _schöne tumbe_ of romance. Again, the adventure of the _Fier

Baiser_ has absolutely nothing to do with Lancelot; it is manifestly

dragged into the _Lanzelet_ version 'by the head and shoulders,' and

has no connection with the context, but it is the crown and completion

of the adventures of Gawain's nameless son.[112]

Whatever be the connection between the _Perceval_ and _Bel Inconnu_

stories, I think it is clear that both were well known before the

development of the _Lancelot_ legend took place, and that in the

process of development this latter borrowed from both. A close

examination of the variants of the _Lancelot_ 'Enfances' will, I think,

strengthen the hypothesis advanced in a previous chapter, _i.e._ that

the connection of the hero with a water-fairy _alone_ is of the essence

of the tale, all the rest is comparatively late in development, and

markedly _non_-original and secondary in character.[113]

CHAPTER VII

THE PROSE LANCELOT--THE LOVES OF LANCELOT AND GUINEVERE

In the previous chapter I remarked that the time, and the material, for

a really critical study of the prose _Lancelot_ were not yet ripe, and

that I should, therefore, confine myself to the discussion of the more

striking features of the story, _i.e._ the _Enfances_, the _liaison_

with Guinevere, and the connection with the Grail Quest. These form

what we may call the persistent element in the completed _Lancelot_

legend; the great mass of adventures filling in the framework, varying

(as we shall presently see) so considerably, that till we have some

idea of the growth and various redactions of the story it is hopeless

to attempt to criticise them.

Certain remarks, however, we can safely make. The story as we have it

at present is marked by a constant repetition of similar incidents.

I have already alluded to one, the love-trance. What we may perhaps

consider an exaggeration of this _motif_, the love-madness, also

occurs more than once and has affected the _Tristan_ story. This is

certainly not an original feature, but I think it is a question whether

the source be the _Chevalier au Lion_ or the _Prophecies of Merlin_;

personally I incline to the latter solution, and think the name of

Merlin's wife, Guendolen, may have suggested its introduction into the

_Lancelot_ story.[114]

Another incident of frequent repetition is the release of the hero

from prison in order that he may attend a tournament. Of this we have

at least three instances: the version of the _Charrette_, where it

is the wife of the seneschal, his jailor, who assists him; and two

belonging specially to the prose _Lancelot_. In one instance it is from

the prison of the Dame de Malehault that he attends the tournament

and returns, as in the _Charrette_; in the other he is freed from the

prison of the three queens by the daughter of the Duc de Rochedon, and

does not return. This latter also corresponds with his being freed

from the prison of Meleagant by the daughter of King Baudemagus,

whom Malory, doubtless under the influence of the _Charrette_ story,

substitutes in his translation for the heiress of Rochedon.

Again we find that certain adventures, some of considerable importance,

are related in some versions of the story while they are omitted in

others, but in the absence of a critical and comparative edition

it is impossible to say which of the great mass of adventures now

composing the prose _Lancelot_ belonged to the original redaction. Nor

can this again be satisfactorily settled till we have determined the

mutual relation between the _Grand S. Graal_, the _Queste_, and the

_Lancelot_. In short, the _Lancelot_ problem involves a number of minor

problems of extreme intricacy, and till these be solved we only stand

on the threshold of Arthurian criticism.[115]

A point in which it appears to me that we have a suggestion of the

original tale, expanded from a source foreign to that tale, is in the

account of the expedition undertaken to recover Lancelot's ancestral

kingdom from the hands of King Claudas. There is no doubt that the hero

should, as a matter of poetical justice, regain his inheritance, and in

the _Lanzelet_ we find it summarily recorded that he does so,[116] but

under entirely different circumstances from those recorded in the prose

_Lancelot_. The latter account is of extreme length, and apparently a

free imitation of the Arthurian expeditions of the _Chronicles_; the

incident of Frollo's defeat before Paris is certainly borrowed from

Geoffrey or his translators. As it now stands the incident is lacking

in point and practically unnecessary to the story, since Lancelot

prefers to continue Arthur's knight rather than become a sovereign

in his own right, and therefore bestows the lands on his cousins and

bastard half-brother. The retention of a feature which evolution has

thus robbed of its significance appears to afford evidence both of the

original independence of the tale and also of the priority of Ulrich

von Zatzikhoven's version.

Leaving on one side then the minor adventures into which the successive

redactions have introduced considerable variation, we will turn to that

feature of the story which, practically unvarying in form, appears

to offer us a fairer prospect of arriving at some real and definite

conclusion--the love of Lancelot for the wife of his liege lord.

Setting aside the many minor questions to which the subject gives rise,

it seems to me that the main problem of the amours of Lancelot and

Guinevere is, Do they represent the latest form of an original feature

of the story, or are we to consider them as an addition to the tale, an

element imported into it under the influence of the popular _Tristan_

legend?

This much is certain, there is no literary evidence of growth in the

story; either it is non-existent, as in the _Lanzelet_, or complete,

fully developed, and decked out in all the artificialities and

refinements of _Minne-dienst_, as in the _Charrette_. As we noted in

our discussion of the latter poem, Chrétien evidently credits his

audience with a previous knowledge of the relations between the queen

and his hero; he nowhere hints that he is about to tell them something

new, nor does he offer any explanation why Lancelot rather than Gawain,

who, as the _Merlin_ informs us, was 'the queen's knight,' should

achieve the rescue of his liege lady. There can be no doubt that he was

dealing with a situation thoroughly familiar to, and understood by, his

hearers.

A point which we are much tempted to overlook in the criticism of

Arthurian romance is the length of time intervening between the period

at which the events recorded are supposed to have happened, and the

earliest known literary record of those events. If we estimate this

intervening period as five centuries, we are speaking well within the

mark. It is obvious that we have here ample time for forgetfulness,

dislocation, or rearrangement of the original legend. Yet that that

legend survived I hold for certain. Had Arthur been completely

forgotten, the immense popularity achieved by the romances of his

cycle would constitute a literary phenomenon practically unique; the

seed that in the twelfth century burst into such glorious flower had

been germinating for ages. The question is, what was the nature of

that seed--what the relation of the original Arthurian legend to the

completed Arthurian romance?

On this point it behoves us to tread warily, and to avoid dogmatising.

I have suggested elsewhere that probably the historic germ of the

Arthurian legend is to be found in his fights with the Saxons,

his betrayal by his wife and nephew, and his death in battle with

the latter. Certainly there is a genuine historic element in the

account of his wars; and it is significant that the older Arthurian

chroniclers--Geoffrey of Monmouth and his translators--all agree in

relating at considerable length the story of Guinevere's betrayal of

her husband; while the Welsh tradition, which does not know Lancelot,

is even more emphatic on the subject of her infidelity.[117]

We must remember that, alike in Geoffrey, Wace, and Layamon, the

account of Guinevere's relations with Mordred is totally different to

that familiar to us through Malory, and borrowed by him from the _Mort

Artur_. In the latter, the queen is no accomplice in Mordred's treason,

but resists his advances _vi et armis_, barricading herself in the

Tower of London, where the traitor vainly besieges her.

In the chronicles the whole position is different: they shall speak for

themselves. This is Wace's account:

'_Que Mordret fist en Engleterre

La roine sot et oï_,

* * * * *

_A Evroïc ert à sejor,

En pensé fu et en tristor.

Membra lui de la vilenie

Que por Mordret se fu honie;

Le roi avoit deshonoré

Et son neveu Mordret amé,

Contre loi l'avoit esposée,

S'in estoit honie et dampnée;

Mius vausist morte estre que vive,

Mult en estoit morne et pensive.

A Karlion s'en est fuie,

S'in entra en une abaïe,

Iloc devint none velée;

Tote sa vie i fu celée.

Ne fu oïe, ne véue,

Ne fu trovée, ne séue.

Por la vergogne del mesfait

Et del pécié qu'ele avoit fait._'--_Brut_, ii. ll. 13607-30.

In the corresponding passage, Geoffrey of Monmouth gives as his

authorities 'Breton' tradition and the clerk Walter of Oxford (cf. note

to above passage). Layamon in his account is even more severe towards

the guilty pair:

'_Arður bi-tahte

al þat he ahte.

Moddrade and þere quene

þat heom was iquene.

þat was ufele idon

þat heo iboren weoren.

þis lond heo for-radden

mid ræuðen uniuo[gh]en.

and a þan ænden heom seolven

þe wurse gon iscenden.

þat heo þer for-leoseden

lif and heore saulen.

and ædder seoððe laðen

nauer ælche londe.

þat nauer na m[=a] nalde.

sel bede beoden for heore saule._'

_Brut_, Layamon, Madden's ed., ll. 25500-14.[118]

In the passage corresponding to that quoted above from Wace, Layamon

adds the detail, that none knew the manner of the queen's death,

_whether she had drowned herself_:

'_nuste hit mon to soðe.

whaðer heo weore on deðe

(and ou [gh]eo hinne ende)[119]

þa heo seolf weore

isunken in þe watere._'--ll. 28481-85.

From these passages it is abundantly clear that Guinevere was no

victim of treachery, but a willing sinner; and that the tradition of

her infidelity to her husband existed prior to the formation of the

Arthurian romantic cycle.

Granting, then, that the feature formed part of the early Arthurian

legend, are we to consider that the version given by the chronicles

faithfully represents the original tradition, and that it was

Mordred who was Guinevere's original lover? I think not. It is an

extremely curious feature of the problem, that though in each of the

pseudo-historic versions Guinevere, as we have seen, is genuinely in

love with Mordred, and is roundly condemned by the chroniclers for

her conduct, in no single one of the Arthurian _romances_ is there

any trace of the slightest affection existing between them. Mordred,

save as traitor in the final scenes, plays no rôle in the story; he

is never represented as a _persona grata_ at court; in one important

version, as we shall see, the queen dislikes him because she suspects

his true relation to Arthur. Guinevere's moral character is held to be

untarnished, even by her _liaison_ with Lancelot.

I suspect that we have here to deal with a lapse of tradition.

Mordred is not the original lover, but he represents him; and between

that original lover and Lancelot there intervenes a period in which

Guinevere's lapse from virtue was smoothed over, and partially

forgotten. It is certainly remarkable that in each of the three great

prose branches, the _Merlin_,[120] the _Tristan_, and the _Lancelot_,

Guinevere's moral character is apparently unaffected by her conduct

with Lancelot. The compilers all agree in extolling her as the noblest

of queens and best of women. Even so aggressively virtuous and clerical

a romance as the prose _Perceval li Gallois_, though quite aware of the

connection, regards Guinevere in a favourable light--indeed, as morally

superior to Arthur! Nor can we quote the _Queste_ as representing the

opposite view; true, Lancelot is blamed for his relations with the

queen, but Guinevere, when she appears upon the scene, is treated with

marked respect, and the reader has an uncomfortable suspicion that

the writer objected to her rather as woman than as wife,--he objects

to the sex as a whole, only forgiving Perceval's sister on account of

her virginity. It seems clear that if the character of Guinevere has,

among the Welsh, been handed down to posterity under the unfavourable

light in which Professor Rhys tells us she is popularly regarded, this

must be due _either_ to a tradition emanating from an earlier and

healthier state of society, when conjugal infidelity was not regarded

with complacency, _or_ to a later and more enlightened verdict on her

relations with Lancelot, but in no case can it be due to the influence

of those who told the story of these relations.

The second cause will, I think, account for the nineteenth-century

presentment of Guinevere's character; we judge her on the grounds of

her relations with Lancelot, which we regard as blameworthy, though not

undeserving of sympathy--in fact, we do but emphasise Malory's verdict.

But this does not account for the Welsh tradition, which, as I have

before pointed out, knows practically nothing of Lancelot; that must

rest upon other grounds, and I believe it rests upon the tradition

preserved to us in the Mordred story.

What this original tradition was, we can now only surmise; it belonged

to a period of which but few and fragmentary traces survive, but I

think that most probably the primitive story ascribed the rôle of

lover to Gawain. I made this suggestion some four years ago,[121]

and subsequent study has shown me nothing to induce me to alter my

opinion, though it has suggested sundry important modifications.

I think now that Gawain and Mordred really represent the two sides of

one original personality; and that a personality very closely connected

with early Celtic tradition.

What the exact nature of the relation between Gawain and early Irish

mythic tradition may be we cannot yet say: that such a relation exists

is practically beyond doubt.[122]

Among the characteristic features of the early Irish heroes with

whom Gawain is connected, we find the following: Adventurous hero

and nephew on the female side to royal centre of cycle (Cuchulinn

and Diarmid[123]); son to that uncle (Cuchulinn); lover of uncle's

wife, eloping with her (Diarmid); deadly combat between father and

son (Cuchulinn and Conlaoch). This latter incident I believe to be

of greater importance in heroic-mythic tradition than has yet been

realised. As I interpret it, the father and son combat in heroic

tradition really represents the 'slayer who shall himself be slain,'

the prehistoric combat of the '_Golden Bough_' (to which I have

referred in chap. v.) influenced by the doctrine of re-birth, as set

forth by Mr. Nutt in vol. ii. of the _Voyage of Bran_, _i.e._ it is a

conflict of the god with his re-born and re-juvenated self, and as such

has a very real place in Celtic tradition.

As we see above, we do not at present possess a version in which all

these characteristics are united in one hero, but they might very well

be so united. I think that the earlier Gawain was at once Arthur's

nephew and son by his sister,[124] adventurous hero of the court, lover

of the queen, and eventually slayer of his father-uncle.[125]

Very probably in the original story there was some such device as the

beauty-spot of Diarmid, which aroused involuntary passion in every

woman who beheld him; or the love-potion of the Tristan story; a device

whereby the earlier tellers of these tales secured sympathy for the

lovers, without lowering the character of the husband, so that Gawain,

no less than Diarmid and Tristan, would be regarded as a gallant and

sympathetic figure.

But the peculiar line of evolution followed by the Arthurian story,

the strongly ethical and Christian character which it early assumed

(due probably to the heathen belief of the historic Arthur's genuine

antagonists, the Saxons), made a change necessary, if Gawain was to

preserve his position as leading hero of the legend, and I now think

it most probable that that change was effected by divesting Gawain of

the characteristics incompatible with his later position, and bestowing

them on another personality, created for the purpose, since they could

not altogether be dropped out of the story. It is significant that, as

I remarked above, the earliest tradition gives Gawain no brother save

Mordred, and Layamon remarks emphatically, '_he never had any other_.'

Further, I suspect, that exactly the same process took place with

regard to Guinevere, and that we have a survival of it in the person of

that mysterious lady, the false Guinevere.

I would therefore modify my original views on the subject, by saying

that I now think that though Gawain was Guinevere's original lover,

Lancelot did not succeed him in that rôle, in fact that Lancelot does

not represent the original lover at all, that that tradition is now

represented by the Mordred story, and that there was a period in the

evolution of the legend, preceding the introduction of Lancelot into

the cycle, during which the tradition of Guinevere's voluntary betrayal

of her husband was dropped, and she was regarded in an altogether

favourable light.

The invention of the Lancelot love-story, which I think we must

regard as in its origin an invention, was probably brought about by

two causes, the growth of _Minne-dienst_, and the popularity of the

_Tristan_ story.

To be absolutely accurate, I think we ought to consider it as

_invented_ to satisfy the demands of the first, and _developed_ under

the influence of the second. That it is, as some writers have held, a

mere imitation of the _Tristan_ story, I do not think, rather it is

marked by certain complex characteristics which cannot be explained on

the hypothesis of other than a dual source. Thus it is impossible not

to feel that the relations of the lovers are dictated by the rules of a

conventional etiquette rather than by the impulse of an overmastering

passion. Even in the scene in which Lancelot first reveals his love to

the queen, there is no touch of genuine passion or self-abandonment;

the confession has been foreseen and expected, and you feel that

Guinevere has carefully regulated her conduct in accordance with the

etiquette prescribed for such an occasion.

In the _Charrette_, this artificial character is strongly marked;

Lancelot's bearing becomes absolutely grovelling in its humility.

The fact that he has been guilty of a momentary hesitation before

mounting the cart is regarded by his capricious lady as a deadly

offence against the rules of love, and resented accordingly, while

Lancelot is so overcome by the assumed indifference of the queen that

he promptly attempts suicide. Compare this with the story of Gawain

and Orgeluse in the _Parzival_. Gawain is heartily in love with the

lady, who treats him, not merely with indifference, but with absolute

insolence--insolence to which Gawain opposes the most serene and

unruffled courtesy, till the lady comes to her senses, when he reads

her a well-deserved lecture on the correct behaviour due to a knight

from a well-bred lady. Gawain is quite as well aware of the rules of

the game as Lancelot, but understands how to play it with becoming

dignity, and remain master of the situation.

There are moments in the Lancelot-Guinevere story when one wonders

whether the whole business be not as platonic and artificial as the

love-rhapsodies of the would-be poets of mediæval Italy, or of certain

of the troubadours; but the night interview in the _Charrette_,

the story of Lancelot's relations with King Pelles's daughter, and

Guinevere's frantic jealousy, together with the final scene of

discovery, forbid this charitable assumption.

Again, as I remarked above, the problem is complicated by the high

character ascribed to Guinevere, and the absolute lack of any real

condemnation of her relations with Lancelot. This is carried so

far that even after the final discovery the kingdom of Britain is

threatened by the Pope with an interdict unless Arthur will consent to

take back his faithless wife; while throughout the war with Lancelot

the sympathies of the reader are asked for the knight, not for the

king. Nothing could well be lower than the morality of the _Lancelot_

story as it now stands: the cynical indifference of what we may call

the 'secular' sections, on the one hand, coupled with the false and

wholly sickly pseudo-morality of the Grail sections on the other,

cannot but be utterly distasteful to any healthy mind. For my own part,

I must needs think the immense popularity of the _Lancelot-Grail_

romances wholly undeserved.

Another point which is often overlooked is the discrepancy of age

between Lancelot and the queen; the hero's birth takes place some

considerable time after the marriage of Arthur and Guinevere. In the

final war with Arthur we are told that Lancelot is twenty-one years

Gawain's junior, this latter being seventy,[126] while Arthur is ninety

years old! It is quite clear that we have here no tale of the genuine

spontaneous love of youth and maiden such as we find in Tristan and

Iseult, but rather the account of the _liaison_ between a young knight

and a lady, his superior in years and station.

All these discrepancies and difficulties in the _Lancelot_ story can, I

believe, be best explained on the lines above suggested. The original

story of Guinevere's infidelity had been dropped out of the legend,

a reminiscence only surviving in the account of Mordred's treachery.

Shortly after the middle of the twelfth century the tone given to

courtly society by certain influential princesses, among them Eleanor

of Aquitaine and England, and her daughter, Marie de Champagne,

demanded the introduction into the popular Arthurian story of a love

element, conceived after the conventions of the day. Doubtless the

popularity of the older _Tristan_ story was an element in the matter,

but we must, I think, guard carefully against regarding the one as an

imitation of the other; in colouring and characteristics the tales are,

as I said above, diametrically opposed.[127]

Why Lancelot was selected as the queen's lover is a question which it

is extremely difficult to answer with any certainty. When I treated

the subject in my _Legend of Sir Gawain_, I suggested that he simply

took the place of Gawain here, as elsewhere. That may have been the

case, but the fact that, as I now think, we have distinct evidence of

an intervening period, or rather of intervening stages, between the

stories, somewhat militates against this idea. The choice may have

been determined by quite simple considerations. It is noticeable that

in each of the poems in which Chrétien mentions Lancelot previous to

the _Charrette_ he places him third in the list of Arthur's knights; in

_Erec_ the two first are Gawain and Erec; in _Cligés_ they are Gawain

and Perceval. None of the three here named would be available: Gawain

from his relationship alike to Arthur and to Mordred, besides the fact

that the character he early acquired as 'the Maidens' Knight' rather

militated against the exclusive fidelity requisite for the post; Erec

was already provided with a lady-love; Perceval was impracticable,

not so much from the ascetic character ascribed to him, which was

probably[128] a later accretion, as from his essentially uncourtly

manners, and very slight connection with Arthur's household. It may

very well be that at the 'psychological moment' Lancelot, by his

new-won position in the cycle, was the one hero who approved himself

fitted for the rôle, and thus reached in the character of the queen's

lover his final evolution as an Arthurian knight.

Again, as I suggested in discussing the _Lanzelet_, it may be that some

peculiarity in his relations with his mysterious protectress gave the

required suggestion. With the knowledge at our disposal the question

cannot be definitely answered.

But the central idea once conceived, the process of evolution proceeded

merrily: doubts, hesitation, despondency, on the part of the hero,

gracious advances on that of the queen; advances on the part of other

ladies, jealousy on the part of Guinevere; despair and madness of

Lancelot; reconciliation, suspicion, detection, danger, deliverance,

all the well-known formulæ of such a love-tale are employed, well

interspersed with the knightly adventures of Lancelot and other

companions of the Round Table. Such a story could be expanded, _ad

infinitum_, and there is no doubt that it was expanded to an inordinate

length, as we shall find when the day comes for a critical edition of

the various redactions of the prose _Lancelot_.

Meanwhile, what of the romance which had given the initial impulse to

the formation of the Lancelot story, the _Tristan_? As a matter of fact

the _Tristan_ was in the unenviable position of a Frankenstein. It had

created, or rather helped to create, a monster which was its eventual

destruction. So far as incidents go, the _Lancelot_ has borrowed but

little from the _Tristan_; the episode of the blood-drops, which betray

the nocturnal meeting of Guinevere and Lancelot in the _Charrette_,

is generally admitted to be borrowed from the similar episode in the

_Tristan_ poems, while the version given by Hartmann von Aue of the

abduction of Guinevere shows points of contact with that of Iseult

by Gandîn, but the incidental parallels between the stories are in

reality very slight. Turn, however, to the prose _Tristan_, and you

find the influence of the _Lancelot_ absolutely dominant. Following the

example of Lancelot, Tristan believes himself to have lost the favour

of his adored queen, flies to the woodland, where he goes mad; attempts

suicide; Iseult pours out her woes in letters to Guinevere, who is

regarded as the noblest of queens, and a recognised authority on love!

Guinevere invites the lovers to Arthur's court; Lancelot places his

castle of Joyous Garde at their disposal. The details of the beautiful

old love poem, the poignant tragedy of Tristan and Iseult, are lost

sight of. In a fragmentary form they still exist, but are buried out of

sight underneath the great mass of Arthurian accretion. It is no longer

the love of Tristan for Iseult which is the central interest of the

story, but the rivalry between Tristan and Lancelot, which of the two

shall be reckoned 'the best knight in the world.'

Dr. Wechssler, in his study on the various redactions of the

Lancelot-Grail cycle, points out the manner in which the two versions

of the _Tristan_ have been worked over and modified so as to bring

them more into harmony with the _Lancelot_.[129] But how thoroughgoing

was this modification, and how disastrous to the older story, can

only be understood by a first-hand study of the texts. An interesting

point for future criticism to determine will be whether there was ever

an earlier, and independent, prose _Tristan_, or whether the prose

versions of this tale are not all posterior to and dependent upon the

_Lancelot_. I do not think that any question can here arise as to the

priority of the poetical relative to the prose form.

To sum up the conclusions arrived at in these pages, I would suggest

that the order of Guinevere's lovers, so far as can be determined from

the surviving Arthurian tradition, was as follows:

1. GAWAIN.--This being indicated by Gawain's close connection with

kindred Celtic legends; traces of the relation surviving in the

accounts given in the _Merlin_ of Gawain as the 'queen's knight,' and

in passages of Chrétien's _Perceval_, Wolfram's _Parzival_, and early

English romances.[130]

2. MORDRED.--Representing a period when such a relationship was held

incompatible with Gawain's character as chivalrous hero, and the more

unamiable features of the primitive conception were transferred to

another character who was regarded as Gawain's only brother. The later

stages of this period are preserved in the _Chronicles_.

3. Intervening period wherein Guinevere undergoes same process as

Gawain, and false Guinevere is evolved. The queen's character is

regarded as irreproachable and Mordred as an unwelcome suitor. Strong

traces of this period remain, both in the earlier metrical and prose

romances, and complicate the subsequent presentment.

4. LANCELOT.--His introduction in this character being due (_a_) to

social conditions in courtly circles, (_b_) to desire to create within

the Arthurian cycle a love-tale which should rival in popularity the

well-known and independent _Tristan_ story. Mordred, however, remains

in the story, and he, rather than Lancelot, should be considered as

representing the original 'infidelity-motif.'[131]

CHAPTER VIII

THE PROSE LANCELOT--LANCELOT AND THE GRAIL

We now approach the most difficult and complicated part of an

exceptionally difficult and complicated question; rather, to be more

accurate, we are now confronted with the union of two questions, each

of them, in a high degree, intricate and obscure. We have not yet

succeeded in solving the problems connected with the evolution of the

Grail romances; we can scarcely be said to have begun the examination

of the _Lancelot_ legend; the union of the two might well appear to

present such insuperable difficulties that the critic might shrink

from grappling at close quarters with so formidable a task. And yet

it may well be that this union of the two legends, which at the first

glance appears so seriously to increase our difficulties, is precisely

that factor which shall play the most important part in their final

solution; that inasmuch as the _Lancelot_ legend was the dominant

factor in the later cyclic development of Arthurian romances, the

disentangling of this particular thread will be the clue which sets

free the other members of the cycle, and enables them to fall once more

into their original and relative positions.

The elements composing the Grail problem are so well known that here I

need do no more than briefly recapitulate them. The Grail romances are

practically divided into two families: that dealing with the history

of the relic--the _Early History_ romances as they are very generally

called; and that dealing with the search for the relic, the _Queste_,

which latter family is again sharply divided into two sections

differentiated from each other by the personality of the hero--the

Perceval and Galahad _Questes_. I am not sure whether we ought not to

go a step further and recognise a third clearly defined family, that of

the Gawain _Queste_. Mr. Nutt in his _Studies on the Legend of the Holy

Grail_[132] partly recognises this, but does not, I think, attribute

sufficient importance to the matter, regarding Gawain as an understudy

of Perceval. I incline to think that before the question is finally

solved we shall require to study very closely the variants which regard

Gawain as Grail hero, and compare them with the _Perceval_ versions. I

am not sure that we shall find the result quite what we expect!

So far criticism has confined itself to the question of the relation

existing between the _Early History_ and _Queste_ versions, and that

between the two main families of the _Queste_. In this latter case

the general consensus of opinion is to regard Perceval, whose story

is marked by certain definite and widely spread folk-lore features,

as an earlier Grail hero than Galahad, whose _Queste_ is strongly

allegorising and mystical in character.

It is this latter _Queste_ which here mainly concerns us, but we shall

find that before we are in a position to examine it closely we must

deal with certain features both of the Gawain and Perceval variants.

The _Gawain_ versions will not detain us long. There is, correctly

speaking, no definite _Gawain-Grail_ romance, but we find records of

Gawain's visits to the Grail castle scattered throughout the latter

part of the _Conte del Graal_, _Diu Krône_ (where he is really the

Grail hero), prose _Lancelot_, and Dutch _Lancelot_ (this latter, as

we shall see, differing in very important particulars from the prose

_Lancelot_). In each case these adventures are marked by peculiarly

wild and fantastic features, sometimes apparently borrowed from the

hero's feats at the _Château Merveil_, as recorded by Chrétien and

Wolfram, sometimes entirely independent of those feats, but strongly

reminiscent of Perceval's experiences in the Grail castle. In the

distinctively _Lancelot_ romances, where Gawain, Lancelot, and Bohort

all attempt the adventures of Corbenic, Gawain is the first to do so,

and his experiences are repeated, with a more fortunate result, in the

case of the other two. The _Grand S. Graal_, which gives an account of

the founding of Corbenic, and the establishment of its marvels, states

that none are to escape with their lives till _Gawain_ shall come, and

he shall receive shame and dishonour.[133] This same romance makes

Gawain a descendant of Joseph of Arimathea.

I think it is quite clear that the Grail castle as depicted in

the later romances is really a combination of the features of two

originally distinct accounts, the Grail castle of the earlier Perceval

story, and the _Château Merveil_ of Gawain legend. The marvellous

features which the Galahad-Lancelot _Queste_ emphasises have clearly

been borrowed from the Gawain romances, and are therefore to be

considered as younger than these.

Dr. Wechssler's study, _Über die verschiedenen Redaktionen des Robert

von Borron zugeschriebenen Graal-Lancelot-Cyklus_, to which I have

previously referred, is of value in helping us to the next stage of our

investigation. The writer points out that the redactors of the prose

romances we possess were familiar with two compilations, practically

covering the entire ground of Arthurian romance, one of which, the

earlier, was ascribed to Robert de Borron, the other, the later, to

Walter Map; or rather, as the author is careful to write throughout,

_pseudo_-Borron and _pseudo_-Map.[134] The original cycle, which the

writer designates _A._, consisted of _Livre del Graal_,[135] _Merlin_,

_Suite Merlin_, _Lancelot_, _Queste_, and _Mort Artur_, but only traces

of the _Borron_ cycle remain, the romances as we have them belonging to

the pseudo-_Map_ redaction.[136]

Further, Dr. Wechssler claims to have detected clear traces of two

subsidiary cycles formed by selections from the original; redaction

_B._ consisting of the _Livre del Graal_, the _Merlin_, and _Suite

Merlin_, and the _Queste_ and _Mort Artur_. The redaction _B._ he

considers the earlier shortened version of the pseudo-Borron cycle.[137]

A still later and shortened redaction was composed of the _Merlin_ and

_Suite Merlin_, _Queste_ and _Mort Artur_; this also being attributed

to the pseudo-Borron.[138]

According to Dr. Wechssler the distinguishing mark which separates the

pseudo-Borron from the pseudo-Map cycle is the introduction into the

former of the personages of the _Tristan_ legend absent from the Map

cycle.

This is very clear, and very interesting, but let us wait a minute

before we examine it, and see how, in the hands of its own author,

the theory works out. The study to which I have just referred was

published in 1895; in 1898 another study appeared from the same

pen, this time dealing exclusively with the Grail romances,[139] in

which Dr. Wechssler practically adopted the standpoint of Professor

Birch-Hirschfeld, that the Grail is _ab initio_ a Christian symbol, but

at the same time endeavoured to harmonise this view with that which

regards the Grail as originally a heathen talisman, while, in the same

way, he claimed to discover a _viâ media_ between the conflicting

variants of the _Queste_, presenting us, as the result, with a curious

composite hero, who was named Galahad, but whose story was the story of

Perceval.

I do not know if the author was himself really satisfied with the

result of his ingenuity; I am convinced no other student of the Grail

romances was; but the interest of the study for us lies in this,

how did a scholar who three years before had published a really

sound, solid, and valuable piece of criticism, such as that on the

Grail-Lancelot cycle, come to wander so far astray in the quagmire of

pure hypothesis and unfounded assumption? Simply and solely, I believe,

because it had never occurred to Dr. Wechssler that the _Lancelot_

romances _could_ be associated with any _Queste_ other than the Galahad

_Queste_. He saw, and saw rightly, that the _Lancelot_ story played a

very important rôle in the cyclic evolution of the Arthurian romance;

he saw that it was closely connected with a Grail _Queste_, and never

suspecting that the hero of that _Queste_ could be other than Galahad,

while at the same time he recognised the priority of certain elements

of the Perceval story, he endeavoured, with a fatal result, to combine

the two, and evolve such a _Queste_ as would suit the earlier redaction

of the _Lancelot_ story.

And yet the key to the truth was in his hand all the time, had he but

known it. He knew M. Paulin Paris's '_Romans de la Table Ronde_';

on p. 87 of vol. iv. the writer quotes a passage from a MS. of the

_Bibliothèque Nationale_, to which I have previously referred, but

which is of such paramount importance for the question before us that I

make no apology for repeating it here: '_Et le grant conte de Lancelot

convient repairier en la fin à Perceval qui est chiés et la fin de

tos les contes ès autres chevaliers. Et tout sont branches de lui_

(c'est-à-dire se rapportent à Perceval[140]) _qu'il acheva li grant

queste. Et li contes Perceval meismes est une branche del haut conte

del Graal qui est chiés de tos les contes_' (MS. 751, fol. 144-48).

To this quotation M. Paulin Paris added the remark, 'Mais dans la

_Quête du Saint Graal_, Perceval n'est plus le héros qui découvre

le Graal et accomplit les dernières aventures. Galaad, le chevalier

vierge, fils naturel de Lancelot, est substitué au _Perceval_ des

dernières laisses de Lancelot. La manie des prolongements aura conduit

à ces modifications des premières conceptions. Et c'est la difficulté

de distinguer ces retouches successives qui a donné à la critique tant

de fils à retordre.'

The position could scarcely be more clearly stated to-day; one can

only regret that this luminous hint of the great French scholar

should have remained so long unfruitful. When the passage first

attracted my attention, which it did some years ago, I made a note

of it as important for the theory of the early evolution of the

_Perceval_ story, but not till I had read Dr. Wechssler's study of the

_Grail-Lancelot_ cycles did its immense importance as evidence for

the evolution of the Arthurian cycle, as a whole, dawn upon me. Yet

here we have a piece of evidence of the very highest value, a direct

and categorical statement that at one period, and that an advanced

one (otherwise it would not be termed 'le _grant_ conte'), of its

evolution, the _Lancelot_ legend was connected with and subordinate to

the _Perceval_ story, and that in its full and complete Grail-Queste

form.

In other words, the distinction between the cycles respectively

attributed to Borron and to Map is not only the presence or absence

of the personages of the _Tristan_ story (as Dr. Wechssler supposes),

but the much more important and radical distinction that, in the first

the _Queste_ was originally a Perceval, in the second always a Galahad

_Queste_. It is surprising that this distinction had not occurred to

the original framer of the thesis, any one familiar with the genuine

Borron romances must be aware that the _Queste_ they presuppose _is_

a Perceval _Queste_. Probably the disinclination, to which I have

referred above, to connect Lancelot with any Grail hero save his own

son had very much to do with the matter; further, I do not think that

Dr. Wechssler had formed a clear idea of the process of evolution

of the cycle he postulated, which he represents as progressing by

contraction, _i.e._ the earliest form being the fullest, or why that

cycle should have been connected with the name of Robert de Borron. In

fact, he reserves the discussion of the questions concerning original

formation for another study.

Now I would submit that the rational progress of evolution is by

expansion, not by contraction, and that the name of Robert de Borron

became associated with a cycle representing the _ensemble_ of Arthurian

romance because there was a smaller cycle which was really the work of

the genuine Robert de Borron, which smaller cycle formed the germ of

the later and more extended body of romance.[141]

Scholars have long ago recognised that the three works attributed to

Robert de Borron, and which, as we possess them, probably represent

prose versions of that writer's original poems, are closely connected

with each other, and have every appearance of having been intended to

form one consecutive work. These three are the _Joseph of Arimathea_,

_Merlin_, and _Perceval_, which latter is only represented by one MS.

and is what we generally call the 'Didot' _Perceval_.[142]

Now if we examine the Didot _Perceval_, as printed by Mr. Hucher in

vol. i. of _Le Saint Graal_, we shall find that the last twenty pages,

succeeding Perceval's achievement of the Grail Quest, are devoted to

Arthur's expedition to France, his conquest of Frollo and war with

Rome, succeeded by Mordred's treachery, the final battle and Arthur's

departure for Avalon--in fact, precisely the contents of the _Mort

Artur_, which, as we know, generally follows the _Queste_, only

related in a more concise and summary manner;[143] and one more in

accordance with the _Chronicles_ than is the case with the other prose

romances.

I think it is quite clear that the _Perceval_, whether in the original

form in which Borron wrote it or not, as we possess it, shows distinct

traces of having formed the concluding portion of a cycle.

It is quite obvious that a genuine Borron cycle, such as suggested

above, would contain the germ of later expansion. Thus the _Joseph of

Arimathea_ certainly appears to represent what we may perhaps call the

first draft of the _Grand S. Graal_. _Merlin_ was certainly expanded

into the _Merlin_ Vulgate and _Suite_. _Perceval_ represents _Queste_

and _Mort Artur_. Only the _Lancelot_ is unrepresented, and with that

I do not think the original 'Borron' cycle had anything to do.

The introduction of the _Lancelot_ probably belongs, as Dr. Wechssler

suggests, to a subsequent writer, who borrowed the more famous name,

to the pseudo-Borron; and from the quotation given by M. Paulin Paris,

I should think it likely that, at first, the juxtaposition of the

_Lancelot_ and _Perceval-Grail_ stories was purely external, and that

they did not affect each other by contamination. The Didot _Perceval_

may well have been the _Queste_ of the earliest pseudo-Borron, whether

or not it represents the _Queste_ of the genuine Borron cycle.[144]

But the growing popularity of the _Lancelot_ story would render such

a contamination inevitable, and I am strongly tempted to believe that

in that perplexing romance, the prose _Perceval li Gallois_, we have

the _Queste_ of a later pseudo-Borron cyclic redaction. The perplexing

features of this version are well known: the whole tone is highly

ecclesiastic, there are numerous references to an earlier Perceval

story, Lancelot plays an important rôle, yet Galahad is unknown, and

there are certain mysterious folk-lore features not met with elsewhere.

Hitherto no one has succeeded in satisfactorily placing this romance. I

would suggest that it represents the _Queste_ of a late pseudo-Borron

_Lancelot-Perceval-Grail_ cycle; and I am encouraged in this

supposition by the fact that this romance knows the Questing-Beast, a

mysterious creation only found in the _Suite Merlin_ and the _Tristan

Palamedes_ romances. Now the _Suite Merlin_ claims to be by Robert

de Borron, and the introduction of the _Tristan_ figures into the

Arthurian story is, as we saw above, held by Dr. Wechssler to be the

distinctive 'note' of the Borron-cycle.[145]

This conclusion is further strengthened when we examine the rôle

assigned to Lancelot in these two romances. In each case he is one

of the most distinguished knights at Arthur's court, but he is much

less _en évidence_ in the Didot _Perceval_ than in the _Perceval li

Gallois_. In the first-named romance he is represented as overthrowing

all the knights of the Round Table, till the appearance of Perceval,

by whom he is himself overthrown. He would thus appear to rank next to

the hero of the tale and to be the superior of Gawain. So far as we can

gather, the order of superiority runs thus: Perceval, Lancelot, Gawain,

Yvain. But he is, apparently, not of those who start on the Grail

quest; nor is there any indication of his _liaison_ with Guinevere. But

the author mentions among the knights '_le fiz à la fille à la femme de

Malehot_.'[146] We do not know the lady of Malehault save through the

medium of the prose _Lancelot_.

In the _Perceval li Gallois_ (_Perlesvaus_ Professor Heinzel prefers to

call it), Lancelot is one of the three best knights in the world, the

other two being Perceval and Gawain; he takes part in the Grail quest,

but on account of his sinful relations with Guinevere is not worthy to

behold the sacred talisman, which does not appear, even in a veiled

form, during his stay at the Fisher King's castle, whereas it appears

clearly to Gawain. The position, so far as Lancelot is concerned, is

thus nearer to the presentment of the Galahad _Queste_ than is the

Didot _Perceval_. This last-named, we have seen above, shows clear

indications of betraying a cyclic redaction; these indications, though

differing in form, are not less clear in the _Perceval li Gallois_.

The concluding passage runs thus: '_Après iceste estoire commence li

contes si comme Brians des Illes guerpi le roi Artus por Lancelot que

il n'aimoit mie et comme il aséura le roi Claudas qui le roi Ban de

Bénoic toli sa terre. Si parole cis contes comment il le conquist et

par quel manière, et si com Galobrus de la Vermeille lande vint à la

cort le roi Artus por aidier Lancelot, quas il estoit de son lignage

cist contes est mout lons et mout aventreus et poisanz._'[147]

In quoting this passage, Professor Heinzel remarks: 'Auch der

_Perlesvaus_ ist einem grösseren Romanwerk einverleibt, aus dem die

Handschrift von Mons den _Perlesvaus_ ausgeschrieben hat. Was ihm

folgte muss eine Art _Lancelot_ gewesen sein.'[148]

There is a further and interesting possibility before us. The compilers

may--in one instance, I think, we can show reason to believe that they

did--have incorporated the Chrétien _Perceval_ (or a version closely

akin to it) into their cycles as representing the _Queste_.

In the work of preparing these studies I felt that I ought to leave no

available version of the _Lancelot_ unexplored, and therefore undertook

to read carefully the immense compilation generally known as the Dutch

_Lancelot_. Well was it for me that I did not shrink from the task! I

had not read far before I began to suspect that the text represented

by this translation was, in every respect, a fuller and a better text

than that used by Dr. Sommer in his Malory collation; in the _Queste_

section in particular was this the case. In the succeeding chapters

I intend to go fully into what is, I believe, in the interests of

Arthurian criticism, a very important discovery. Here I will only say

that I eventually found that the text of the Dutch _Lancelot_, of the

printed version of the prose _Lancelot_ Lenoire, 1533 (which, as I

have remarked before, Dr. Sommer does not chronicle), and Malory's

_Lancelot_ and _Queste_ sections all stand together as representing a

much fuller and more accurate text than that of the prose _Lancelot_

1513, or the _Queste_ MSS. consulted by Dr. Furnivall for his edition

of that romance. Whether we have not here an important part of the

_un_shortened pseudo-Borron-_Lancelot_ into which the Map _Queste_ has

been introduced is a matter for careful investigation. The point to

which at the present moment I would draw attention is, that the Dutch

_Lancelot_ incorporates a very considerable section of a _Perceval_

romance, which bears a very close resemblance to Chrétien's poem, with

this curious difference, that it gives an account of the achieving of

the adventures named by the Grail messenger, which, so far as I know,

is found nowhere else. This section, which occupies over two thousand

lines, demands a special study, but for us its significance lies in

this that it seems to point to the conclusion that in the evolution of

a _Lancelot-Perceval_ cycle (the existence of which I think we may hold

for proven) the compilers allowed themselves considerable latitude in

the _Queste_ section. There were several Perceval _Questes_ to select

from, and they took which they preferred, even pressing the original,

manifestly independent, _Perceval_ romances into their service. I

suspect that this variation in the Perceval _Queste_ helped towards its

suppression in favour of the Galahad variant, which had the advantage

of existing only in one form, though the cause mainly operating was an

entirely different one.[149]

So far then we have traced the evolution of the _Lancelot_ story, and

found that at one period of its development, and that an advanced

period, it was connected with a Grail story, which regarded Perceval as

its hero and knew nothing of Lancelot's son, Galahad. How then did the

latter appear upon the scene, and in what light are we to regard the

romances dealing with him?

I have studied the Galahad _Queste_ closely, and have compared

versions gathered from widely different sources, French originals,

and translations, and I am distinctly of the opinion that we possess

the romance practically in its original form. It is a homogeneous

composition, it is not a compilation from different sources and by

different hands. There is no trace of an earlier and later redaction,

save only in the directly edifying passages, which in some cases appear

to have undergone amplification. The difference between the versions is

not that of incident or sequence, scarcely even of detail, but rather

of the superior clearness and coherence with which the incidents are

related in some of the versions as compared with others. I am strongly

inclined to think that there is no peculiarity in any of the _Queste_

MSS. which cannot quite well be ascribed to the greater or less

accuracy of the copyist, or his greater or less taste for discourses of

edification.

Nor is the _Queste_ by the same hand as was responsible for the final

moulding of the _Lancelot_ story; though so closely connected with,

indeed dependent upon, that story, it yet in many points stands in

flagrant contradiction with it, and there is little doubt that the

_Lancelot_ would gain greatly in coherence if the _Queste_ were

omitted, and the passages preparatory to it eliminated from the

original romance. These remarks apply also to the _Grand S. Graal_ in

its present form, though, as we shall see, this last named romance does

not stand on precisely the same footing as the _Queste_ with which it

is now closely connected.

The following facts seem to stand out clearly. Both these Grail

romances, the _Queste_ especially, depend _entirely_ for their interest

on Lancelot. They are the glorification of his race as that from which

the Grail Winner is predestined to spring. The genealogies, however

they may vary (as they do in the different versions), are all devoted

to this object. They are most closely connected with, and practically

presuppose each other; yet admitting, as I think we must admit, that

they do not represent the original form of the Grail story, they do not

produce the impression of romances which have been worked over with the

view of substituting a new hero for the one in whose honour the tale

was originally constructed.

Nevertheless in the case of the _Grand S. Graal_ we must, I think,

admit imitation; even as in the original Borron cycle the _Joseph of

Arimathea_ was designed as an introduction to the life and deeds of

the Grail Winner, Perceval, so in this, the latest form of the cycle,

the introduction to the _Queste_ is built upon and expanded from the

_Joseph_. The introduction is based upon and follows the lines of the

old introduction, but the _Queste_ is a new _Queste_.

Let us be quite clear on this point. Galahad may have in a measure

supplanted Perceval, but he has neither dispossessed nor robbed him.

He has taken over no one of his characteristics, no one of his feats.

Such traces of the Perceval story as remain are found in connection

with Perceval himself; he, too, achieves the Grail _Queste_. He has

undergone a change, and a change for the worse, but that was quite

as much due to the evolution of the Grail as a Christian talisman as

to the invention of Galahad. The hero of the Didot _Perceval_ and

_Perceval li Gallois_ is as inferior to the hero of Chrétien and

Wolfram as is the Perceval of the Galahad _Queste_. The truth is that

Perceval is still the Grail hero, but he shares that character with

another whose invention is due to special and easily discernible

causes.[150]

The point of view of the writer of the _Queste_ is not that of the

compilers of the _Lancelot_. As I remarked in the previous chapter,

the view taken by the _Lancelot_ of the relations between the hero and

the queen is frankly unmoral. Neither is blamed for his or her action,

neither is apparently conscious of wrong-doing. In the _Queste_

Lancelot's conscience is sorely vexed, and his sin insisted upon. The

compilers of the _Lancelot_ have a very courtly respect for women--the

author of the _Queste_ despises them utterly. The interest of the

_Lancelot_ lies in the relation between the sexes--the respective

duties of knight and lady--the theme which inspires the _Queste_ is

their abiding separation.

Again, compare the treatment of the various characters of the story in

the two respective sections. Next to Galahad and Perceval, the hero

of the _Queste_ is Bohort (Bors). But for a single youthful lapse he

yields in nothing to those doughty champions of celibacy: his purity,

alike of body and soul, is emphatically insisted upon; his confession

fills the priest who receives it with a fervour of admiration; yet

it is precisely this saintly youth who, in the section preceding and

following the _Queste_ (the _Lancelot_ and the _Mort Artur_), is the

confidant and go-between of Lancelot and Guinevere. It is Bohort who

seeks Lancelot at the secret bidding of the queen, Bohort who carries

love-tokens between them, who arranges meetings. It is he and Lionel

who consult the queen as to the delicate question of Lancelot's future

relations with the lady who has cured him from the illness caused by

drinking the poisoned spring; he who is the confidant of Guinevere's

indignation at the supposed love-affair between Lancelot and the maiden

of Escarloet; and if he tries to prevent the last fatal meeting between

them it is with no view of hindering a wrong to his lord Arthur, but

solely because he has reason to suspect the trap laid for the lovers.

The two presentments not simply fail to agree, but stand in flat

contradiction with each other.

Lionel, again, is throughout the _Lancelot_ a valiant knight, warmly

attached alike to his brother and to his cousin. Like Bohort he takes

Lancelot's part on every occasion, with him he quits the court when

the queen, in an access of jealousy, banishes Lancelot. When he is

finally slain both Bohort and Lancelot are overcome with grief. But the

_Queste_ paints him in the most repulsive colours: violent, brutal, and

unreasoning to a degree. He is so indignant with his brother for going

to the rescue of a maiden rather than of himself (when both are equally

in danger) that he does his best to kill him in revenge. He does kill

an unoffending hermit, and a fellow knight of the Round Table who would

intervene, and finally it needs a special interposition of Providence

to part the two brothers before a fatal issue to the conflict forced on

by Lionel has taken place.

Hector, Lancelot's half-brother, who in the later _Lancelot_ story

is one of the bravest and most distinguished knights of the court,

is in the _Queste_ held up to scorn and rebuke; while the author of

this romance has no colours too black in which to paint the character

of Gawain, who, though deposed from his position of chief hero, is,

throughout the _Lancelot_ proper, treated with the greatest respect. He

is entirely loved and trusted by king and queen, and if his valour is

in the long-run surpassed by that of Lancelot, the compiler is careful

to preserve his honour intact by pointing out, first, that he never

recovered from the severe wounds received in the war with Galehault,

second, that he was over twenty years Lancelot's senior. The final

conflict between them, the most deadly in which Lancelot was ever

engaged, was fought when Gawain was seventy-two and Arthur ninety-two

years of age; further, as we shall see presently, in some versions the

conclusion is more of the character of a drawn battle than of a defeat

for Gawain.[151]

It is, I think, quite clear that the Galahad-Grail romances are the

work of another hand than that responsible for the main body of the

_Lancelot_ cycle; and the work of one who was at small pains to

harmonise his story with the branches already existing. It is indeed

doubtful whether the writer had any thorough acquaintance with the

legend as a whole. It is noteworthy that the points of contact with

what we may perhaps call the 'secular' section are all restricted to

the _later_ part of the story, that commencing with what M. Paulin

Paris called the _Agravain_ section. Between the _Grand S. Graal_, the

Galahad _Queste_, and the later part of the _Lancelot_ there are a

number of what we may call cross-references, the precise value of which

will be very difficult to determine. But they do not stray outside a

certain limit--they are restricted to Lancelot, the Knight of the

Round Table, the queen's lover, and father of the Grail Winner--they

do not appear to know Lancelot the _protégé_ of the Lady of the Lake.

In this character the Grail romances ignore him, nor do they appear to

know anything of his most famous adventure, the freeing of Guinevere

from Meleagant.[152]

It is the later and not the earlier _Lancelot_ story which is known

to the writer of the _Queste_; and the more we study the romance the

plainer this becomes. The _Lancelot_ romance may really be divided

into two great divisions, the _Enfances_, _Charrette_, and _Galehault_

section, which is practically unaffected by the _Grail_ tradition,

though it shows evident signs of contact with the _Perceval_ story; and

the latter portion which (saving the _Mort Artur_, unaffected except by

the addition of the concluding _Queste_ paragraph, easily removed) has

been redacted under the influence of the Galahad-Grail accretion.

Till the versions concerned have been critically examined we cannot

determine the value or gauge the evidence of the matter common to

the _Lancelot_, _Grand S. Graal_, and _Queste_. The most noticeable

instances are the following: the keeping of the Grail at Castle

Corbenic, the founding of which is related in the _Grand S. Graal_;

the characters of King Pelles and his father, with regard to whom the

evidence varies,--as a rule, the character of the Fisher King appears

to be confined to the former, that of the Maimed King to the latter

(the author of the _Queste_ appears to have no idea that the two

characters are one and the same);--the daughter of King Pelles, and his

son Eliezer. This latter is, I think, peculiar to the Lancelot-Galahad

story, the Perceval versions do not know him. The adventure of the

broken sword borne by Eliezer, told both in _Lancelot_ and _Grand S.

Graal_, and achieved, though without satisfactory explanation, in

_Queste_.[153] The Boiling Fountain and Bleeding Tomb adventures,

also told in the two first, partly achieved in the _Lancelot_, and

achievement summarily announced in _Queste_. The Perilous Cemetery,

origin stated in _Grand S. Graal_, vainly attempted by Gawain and

Hector in _Lancelot_, final achievement barely recorded in _Queste_.

In these last instances the story may well have been in the _Lancelot_,

and taken over by the compiler of _Grand S. Graal_; the _Queste_ makes very

little of them; they only serve to keep up the connection between the

'secular' and 'religious' sections.

With regard to the Corbenic-Grail adventures, I am inclined, as I

said before, to look upon them as due to the influence of the Gawain

story, and as already existing, in a purely adventurous form, in the

_Lancelot_, before it was formally united to the Grail Quest.

On the whole, I decidedly lean to the opinion that _Grand S. Graal_ and

_Queste_ are by one and the same hand--the one based upon and expanded

from an older poem, the other a practically new invention, the two

being designed to replace the _Joseph of Arimathea_ and _Perceval_ of

the earlier Grail cycle. As I said above, the author was very little

concerned about the harmony of his work. So long as by a superficial

rearrangement and interpolation of incidental adventures he could

produce an appearance of harmony, he cared nothing at all about the

more important questions of continuity of treatment, and preservation

of tone and character. The result is that his work, which stands

practically as he left it, is in flagrant contradiction with the story

it is designed to complete.

But what was the motive which led to the setting aside of the earlier

Perceval _Queste_, and what the causes which determined the particular

form assumed by its successor?

I do not think they are difficult to detect.

During the later years of the twelfth and earlier years of the

thirteenth century we see two stories in process of gradual

evolution--the Perceval-Grail story and the Lancelot legend. One early

took a decidedly mystical and ecclesiastical bent, the other became

more and more worldly and secular. The two appear to have had an equal

hold on popular imagination, they early came into touch with each

other, but they never really blended. The _Lancelot_, as the younger,

borrowed at the outset certain features from the _Perceval_, but it

retained its own distinctive character; while the elder story slowly

changed, the Grail, at first a subordinate element in the story,

gradually but surely dominating the tale, which became more and more

ecclesiastical, while the hero became more and more conventional.[154]

But at a certain point it became evident that these lines of tradition

could no longer remain parallel, they must coalesce, or the one must

yield to the other. The Grail quest had become the most popular

adventure of Arthur's court, one after another the knights were being

drawn into the mystic circle; how could the most popular and most

valiant of the knights of the Round Table, for this Lancelot had now

become, remain outside the chosen group? It was plain that Lancelot

must take part in the Grail quest; it was equally plain that the first

knight of the court could not be allowed to come out of the ordeal with

any detriment to his prestige; yet the Grail demanded purity of life,

and Lancelot was the queen's lover. More, the queen's lover he must

remain or forfeit his hold on popular sympathy.

How was it possible to preserve intact at once Lancelot's superiority

and the purity of the Christian talisman? Only in one way: by giving

him a son who should achieve the quest and then vanish, leaving

Lancelot still _facile princeps_ among the knights of the Round Table,

with the added glory of having been the father of the Grail Winner.

But this son could not be the child of Guinevere. The offspring of a

guilty _liaison_ could not be the winner of the sacrosanct talisman;

yet Lancelot must be faithful to his queen--how solve this problem? The

story in its primitive form gave the hint for the required development.

Who more fitted to become the mother of the Grail Winner than the

fair maiden who filled the office of Grail-bearer?[155] The obvious

propriety of such a relationship was bound sooner or later to strike

the imagination of some redactor. The Arthurian story already possessed

the machinery by which Lancelot could become father of the elect child,

while remaining Guinevere's lover; Brisane had but to do for Elaine

what Merlin did for Uther, and the difficulty was overcome. Moreover,

_Helaine_ was, in the old story, the name of the Grail Winner's father,

nothing more easy than to bestow the same name on the new hero's

mother. All this was only a question of clever adjustment of already

existing factors.

Perceval, of course, was in possession, but the later development

of his story, which had converted him from a genuine, faulty, but

loving and lovable human being, true man and faithful husband, into

an aggressively proselytising and persecuting celibate, had made it

possible for him still to retain a place in the romance; he could

act as second to Galahad, and, like him, disappear, the quest once

achieved. But having thus disposed in Lancelot's interest of the two

who might have seriously challenged his fame as a knight, Perceval,

the real, Galahad, the vicarious (for I think we can only regard him

as his father's representative), achiever of the quest, it became

necessary to add a third, who should bring back to court the tidings

of their success. It is quite obvious, from the point of view of the

_Lancelot_ story, that Perceval and Galahad _could not_ be permitted to

return. The third was easily found in the person of Lancelot's nearest

relative, the knight who, his shield unstained by the bar-sinister

which marked that of Hector, had been gradually rising in popular

favour; Bohort owes his position in the _Queste_ to his position in the

_Lancelot_ proper.

The evolution of this character has not, I believe, attracted much

attention hitherto, but it is one of the most remarkable features of

the _Lancelot_ story. In the earliest versions, represented by the

_Lanzelet_, etc., he is not known at all.[156] When he first appears

he plays but a small part, gradually his rôle becomes more and more

prominent, till in the later portion of the prose _Lancelot_ he has

become a very efficient understudy to the hero, even surpassing in

valour Gawain himself. Thus, on the return of the knights from one

of their numerous quests in search of Lancelot, when they are called

upon to rehearse their adventures, in order that a record of them

may be made, it is decided that their rank, in order of merit, is

Bohort, Gawain, Hector, Gaheriet, Lionel, and Baudemagus. Gawain and

his brother, the representatives of the older stratum of Arthurian

tradition, are the only two who can compete with the all-conquering

race of Ban, and the bosom friend of that race, Baudemagus.

Finally he is represented as the father of a son who bids fair to

rival his ancestors in valour. When a critical study of the Lancelot

MSS. is seriously undertaken, I think we shall find that the position

occupied by Bohort in the story will afford a valuable indication of

the relative age of the redaction.

I am quite prepared to find that among the objections which will

doubtless be advanced against the theory here advocated one will be

that it is too complete in detail, too 'cut and dried,' if I may use

the term, to be free from suspicion. To this I would answer that I

believe in examining the later stages of Arthurian romance we must

follow a somewhat different process from that which we employ for the

earlier. The Arthurian poems, being in a large measure independent,

and never having formed part of a 'cyclic' whole, may well be studied

separately, in, and for, themselves, though of course we would not

leave out of sight variants of the same story. But the later prose

romances, those which have avowedly formed parts of a cycle, must be

studied, not separately, but in conjunction with the other romances

with which they were connected. They are in the position of the

parts of a dissected puzzle, the study of one part by itself will

never really help us to understand the whole, it is only by studying

collective sections, and trying continually new combinations, that we

can hope to find the original disposition of the parts.

It is no use to study the _Queste_ romance by itself. If we wish

to know how it stands with regard to the _Lancelot_, we must study

it _with_ the _Lancelot_, and if we do this certain points become

absolutely clear. The _Queste_ pre-supposes a very advanced stage of

the _Lancelot_ story; one at which the family of the hero, quite as

much as the hero himself, is the subject of glorification.[157]

The Galahad _Queste_ is absolutely unthinkable without a previous

knowledge of the _Lancelot_ romances; as a matter of fact, it stands

in closer relation to these than it does to any earlier Grail quest.

The _Lancelot_ romances, on the contrary, would be quite complete and

far more coherent without the _Queste_. I have commented already on

the striking discrepancies between the sections, but I have not so far

dwelt at any length on the extraordinary lack of Grail references in

the _Mort Artur_, the section immediately following the _Queste_. If

we set on one side the introductory passage, which I have no shadow of

doubt does not belong to the _Mort Artur_ at all, but is the concluding

passage of the _Queste_, there is no evidence of the influence of the

latter throughout the whole of this last section of the cycle. Galahad

is never mentioned; he was--and is not--as completely as if he had

never been. Lancelot never thinks of, never refers to, his valiant son;

his whole thought and care is for the queen, whom we were previously

told he had renounced. I do not think it possible for any one to read

the _Mort Artur_ and believe that the _Queste_ forms an integral part

of the _Lancelot_ story. On the other hand, cut out the _Queste_,

suppress the few passages in the immediately preceding section of the

_Lancelot_ story which relate to it, and you have a tale as complete

and coherent as is possible for any legend which has been the fruit

of long growth and evolution, and has not possessed from the outset a

clear and definite purpose and outline.

Admit, as I think we must needs admit, that the _Lancelot_ and the

_Grail_ stories form two independent streams of tradition; recognise,

as we must recognise, their diverse character,--one strongly secular,

the other strongly ecclesiastical,--and I think we must own that if in

their completed form they were to coalesce, that coalition could only

be carried out under the conditions suggested above, which conditions

we find fulfilled in the Galahad _Queste_. For me this romance is

the last word of the _Lancelot_ evolution, the final blending of two

separate and important streams of tradition, the _grant conte_ of

Lancelot and the _grant conte_ of Perceval and the Grail, the which is

_chiés et fin de tous les contes_.

CHAPTER IX

THE DUTCH LANCELOT

In the previous chapters we have examined, so far as the material

at our disposal permitted, the _Lancelot_ legend in its gradual

evolution from a collection of scattered tales, or _lais_, to the

vast body of cyclic romance which was its final form. In this task

we have restricted ourselves to those features which more intimately

concern the personal character and fortunes of our hero; a choice

which leaves untouched a large section of his adventures, such as his

friendship with Galehault, and his winning of the _Dolorous Garde_.

These are features which, affecting no romance or chronicle outside the

_Lancelot_ proper, cannot well be examined till more versions of this

latter are available. In this, the concluding section of these studies,

I propose, leaving the question of the nature and origin of the legend,

to discuss the relation subsisting between those different versions of

the text, on an examination of which I have based the three preceding

chapters dealing with the prose _Lancelot_.

The texts in question are (1) the so-called Dutch _Lancelot_; (2) the

printed edition of 1533 (Lenoire, Paris); (3) Dr. Sommer's summary

of the prose _Lancelot_, based upon the printed edition of 1513, and

compared by him with Malory's text; (4) Dr. Furnivall's edition of

the _Queste_; and (5) Malory's _Morte Arthur_.[158] This gives us

practically four different texts for each section (Dr. Sommer having

also used the _Queste_), two of which, the Dutch _Lancelot_ and the

1533 edition, appear to me to be of far greater importance than has

hitherto been suspected.

I propose to publish in an Appendix a detailed summary of the contents

of the distinctively _Lancelot_ portion of the =D. L.=, but the

compilation covers such an extent of ground, and contains texts of such

value to the student of Arthurian literature, that I think it will not

be superfluous to give here a brief outline of its general character.

A noticeable peculiarity of the version is, that, contrary to all other

known versions of the _Lancelot-Galahad-Grail_ story, it is in verse

and not in prose. The MS. containing it appears to be of the beginning

of the fourteenth century;[159] but Dr. Jonckbloet gives reason to

think that the version contained in it was decidedly older than this

date, and there are certainly references to the _Lancelot_ story in

much earlier Dutch MSS. Probably it is a compilation similar to that

of Sir Thomas Malory, intended to combine the various romances of the

Arthurian cycle with which the compiler was familiar, or of which MSS.

were at his disposal. In the first instance it was a translation, and I

think we must hold a very faithful translation, from the French. Even

as we have it we shall find that it agrees closely with parallel French

versions. In its original form it consisted of four books, the first of

which has unfortunately been lost.

Book II. begins with what M. Paulin Paris called the _Agravain_ section

of the prose _Lancelot_, _i.e._ the _Enfances_, _Galehault_, and

_Charrette_ portions are not included.[160] The first 36,000 lines

follow the course of the _Lancelot_; at line 36,947 it takes up the

_Perceval_ at the point of the arrival of the Grail messenger, and for

about two thousand lines goes on to give an account of the achieving

of the adventures mentioned by her. In some points the compiler agrees

closely with Chrétien and seems to have followed his version, in others

he departs entirely from any known version of the _Perceval_. Sometimes

his names agree rather with Wolfram than with Chrétien; _e.g._ the

lady is Orgeloise simply, not L'Orguelleuse de Logres; and Gawain's

challenger is Ginganbrisil, a form which Professor Yorke Powell pointed

out some years ago as the probable source of Wolfram's Kingrimursel.

L. 41,420, we have a visit of Gawain to the Grail castle, agreeing

closely with that found in the Montpelier _Perceval_, and also, Dr.

Jonckbloet informs us, with that contained in a German version of

the _Perceval_ preserved at Rome (cf. Jonckbloet, vol. i. p. xxiv.),

adventures of Gariette and Griflette, and the fight between Gawain

and Ginganbrisil, which ends in the victory of the former, and the

king of Scavalon becoming Arthur's 'man.' This again is not recounted

elsewhere.[161]

Ll. 42,540-47,262 contain the romance of _Morien_, son of Agloval, the

hero of which bears a curious resemblance to Wolfram's Feirefis. In

this romance occurs the episode of Lancelot's conflict with a monster,

which I have examined in chap. iii. This concludes Book II.

Book III. opens with the _Queste_, the text of which I shall examine

in detail further on; it extends to over 11,000 ll. The remainder of

the book is occupied by a group of important episodic romances, some of

which are found nowhere else. They are as follows:

11,161. _La vengeance de Raguidel._[162]

14,300. An adventure of Lancelot, Bohort, and Dodinel, when the latter

rescues a maiden tied up in a tree.

14,681. _Le Chevalier à la Manche_ (van den riddere metter mouwen).

18,603. _Gauvain et Kei_ (Hoe Keye Waleweine verriet).

22,271. _Lancelot et le cerf au pied blanc_ (van der jonc frouwen

metten hondekine).

23,122-26,980. _Torec._[163]

Book IV. _Mort Artur_, 13,054 ll. The united three books thus

comprising a total of over 87,000 lines.

It will be seen from the above brief summary that the =D. L.= presents

many features of great interest for the student of the Arthurian

story, but so far, with the exception of the studies published by

M. Gaston Paris, to which I have just referred, it does not appear

to have attracted much attention from scholars. It is especially to

be regretted that Dr. Sommer did not use it for the purpose of his

'Malory' collation; had he done so, he would certainly have come, on

many points, to a very different conclusion from that at which he

ultimately arrived.

In the following comparison I shall confine my remarks chiefly to

such decided variants as cannot possibly be ascribed to the mistakes

or emendations of copyists; nor shall I include those minor verbal

differences which, however important for a critical edition of the

text, do not in themselves definitely prove a divergence of sources.

The point I desire to prove is that the versions =D. L.= and =1533=

represent a text radically different from that consulted by Dr. Sommer;

and that, in conjunction with Malory, they may be held to represent a

family of MSS. hitherto unregarded, or unsuspected.

As readers of Malory are aware, he gives no account of the birth or

early adventures of Lancelot; the section dealing with that hero begins

with Book VI., and takes up his adventures at a point well advanced

in what, following M. Paulin Paris, I have called the _Agravain_

section (l. 13,351 in =D. L.=). That Malory had before him any version

of the earlier section of the _Lancelot_ I very much doubt. It must

be apparent to any careful reader that, in his view, the Lady of the

Lake is connected rather with Arthur than with Lancelot; whenever

she intervenes in the story it is to aid the former, rather than the

latter. I incline to the belief that Malory's MS. only began at an

advanced point of the story, and that he knew little, or nothing, of

what had preceded it.

At the commencement of the Terriquen (=D. L.= gives the name as

Tarquijn) adventure, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =M.= all represent Lancelot

and Lionel as sleeping under the shadow of a '_pomier_' instead of a

_perron_ as in =S.=[164]

When Hector comes to the fountain he finds =D. L.= LX. shields and

helmets, and XL. swords (the first letters have evidently been

transposed and should read XL.). =1533.= Forty-five helmets, forty-five

swords, and 'more than' forty-five shields. =S.= Forty swords,

forty-five shields, and five spears: helmets are not mentioned. Here

=S.= appears to have a confused version of the two preceding accounts.

In the account of the queens who carry off Lancelot =D. L.= and =1533=

agree with =S.= in naming the ladies (the queen in =D. L.= is of

Foreestan, _not_ Sorestan); otherwise the accounts seem to vary. =D.

L.= and =1533= do not say, as does =S.=, that the first-named is on

her way to Norgales through 'Sorelois,' but that her land 'borders

on' these kingdoms. It is not the _three_ but only the two last-named,

Morgain le Fay and Sibile (Cybele) l'enchanteresse, who are learned in

enchantments; and neither =D. L.= nor =1533= give any indication of

their being the 'queen's ladies' as =S.= represents; they are simply

travelling with her.[165]

The lands of the heiress of Rochedon were not seized by the _King_ of

Sorestan, as =S.= states, but by the _queen_ who had been left her

guardian (=D. L.= and =1533=). This is much more in accordance with the

rest of the story. Otherwise these three versions agree against =M.=

Later on both =D. L.= and =1533= agree in speaking of Galehodyn as the

_neveu_, not the _filz_ of Gallehault, as in =S.= They are of course

right.

In the account of the tournament there are a number of small variants.

Judging from =S.=, who gives a very condensed summary, =D. L.= and

=1533= are again more correct in details.

On p. 186 of =S.= the summary departs widely from =D. L.= and =1533=.

Thus, according to =S.=, Lancelot, seeking for Hector and Lionel, has

met with Bohort, Yvain, and four other knights at the 'Chastel du

Trespas.' Lancelot proposes that each of the _six_ knights (_sic_)

(there were of course seven) shall each ride forth separately and

return to the castle 'a la feste de toussainz.' In =D. L.= and =1533=

Lancelot has started _accompanied_ by Bohort, Baudemagus, and Gaheret.

_En route_ they meet Mordred, naked, and being thrashed with thorns by

'Mathoeus die felle' (Marchant li felon), rescue him, and ride to

Chastel du Trespas, where Yvain is imprisoned, whom they also free. It

is Yvain, not Lancelot, who suggests the separation and quest.

Again, in the fight between Lancelot and 'Terriquen,' both =D. L.= and

=1533= agree against =S.= and =M.= in failing to mention Gaheret's

(they have the correct spelling) horse, and saying that Lancelot rides

off on his own. Whereas, later on, =S.= and =1533= agree in giving

'three varlets and three sommiers' and =D. L.= and =M.= agree in a

'foster' with four horses.

In the question of the final disposal of the castle =D. L.= and =1533=

again fall into line against =S.= The latter says that the knights

exchange Terriquen's castle for horses, though not very good ones. I

suspect this of being a hasty summary which does not represent the

text; =D. L.= and =1533= are so much more detailed. =D. L.= says that

'Die grave van den _Pale_ (later on _Parke_, which is I think the

correct reading) is rejoiced at the event as his '_neve_' was one of

the prisoners. He gives all Arthur's knights very good horses. That

he receives the castle is not told, though he afterwards appears

as the owner. =1533= says that 'Keux[166] du Parc' has a 'brother'

prisoner: delighted at his safety he gives them all horses, very good

to Arthur's knights, not so good to the others. Out of gratitude they

offer him the castle. If =S.= correctly represents the text of 1513, it

is clear, I think, that =1533= gives the original reading, which has

been condensed, but rightly understood, by =D. L.=, and confused in =S.=

In the account of the adventures at the castle =D. L.=, agreeing in

the main with =S.= and =1533=, as against =M.=, yet in one point falls

into line with this latter against the other two. Both =S.= and =1533=

agree in saying that Lancelot ties his horse to a _tree_, =M.= says 'to

a ringe on the walle'; in =D. L.= he ties his horse, when he comes to

the '_meester torre, vor die porte al te hant_,' which seems to imply

=M.='s 'ringe.'[167]

I now come to a most extraordinary oversight on the part of Dr. Sommer.

On p. 191 and again on p. 274 of his _Sources of Malory_ he commits

himself to the statement that =M.= is the only known source for certain

adventures of Lancelot, his rescue of Kay, his riding off in Kay's

armour, etc., and proceeds from this supposed peculiarity to postulate

a lost '_Suite de Lancelot_,' of which this is a precious fragment.

Now, not only are these adventures recorded both in =D. L.= and =1533=,

but they are found in the summary given by M. Paulin Paris on p. 323 of

vol. v. of the _Romans de la Table Ronde_.[168]

The adventure with Kay does not, in the original, occur at this point,

but follows after Lancelot's long imprisonment by Morgain; his freeing

Lionel from the dungeon of the King of Estrangeloet; winning the hill

guarded by Bohort; and discovering the tomb of his grandfather;--a

sequence of incident in which =D. L.= and =1533= agree perfectly.

Of the following adventures contained in Book VI. =S.= consequently

gives no summary. Throughout =M.= very closely agrees with =D. L.=

and =1533=, but he omits to state, as do both these versions, that

Lancelot's arraying himself in Kay's armour was due to the dim light

of early morning. He believed himself to be donning his own, and was

unaware of the error till his host detected it, when he refused to

change, foreseeing the amusing complications which would result. This,

having no bearing on the story, which is concerned with the _fact_, not

with the motive, was probably omitted by =M.= Another slight variation

in =M.='s version is that he gives three knights and three pavilions,

whereas the other two agree in giving two knights and four pavilions.

Nor are the knights named as in =M.=, but this is most probably due to

the English writer, who hardly ever fails to name his characters.

The four knights of the Round Table are the same in all three cases,

and =M.= and =D. L.= agree in the order, while =1533= makes Yvain the

last to joust. The two first are probably correct, as Gawain, being

the most noted of the four, would probably be the last to try his

fate. Both =D. L.= and =1533= agree in a feature omitted by =M.=, that

Mordred was originally in the company of these four, but being severely

wounded on a previous occasion cannot joust (=D. L.=); has been left at

a castle that morning (=1533=). =M.= also omits to say that Segramore

reveals their names to Lancelot, who, overcome with grief at having

so ill-treated his friends, throws away his shield, and rides off

weeping. This causes the four knights to suspect his identity, and they

take the shield and carry it with them to court. I suspect that this

was in =M.='s original, as he makes Gawain say 'whan we come to the

courte than (s)hal we wete,' which is the reason they give in the other

versions for taking the shield; accordingly, they hang it on a pillar

in the middle of the hall until it is recognised.

Immediately after this adventure =D. L.= and =1533= record one of which

=M.= gives no hint, but which is important in view of a remark made by

Dr. Sommer on p. 204 of his study. Lancelot, having overthrown these

four knights, comes to two pavilions, in one of which is the lady who

cured him from his illness at the Poisoned Spring;[169] as they talk a

party of knights and ladies ride up, with them a fair child three years

old (=D. L.=); two years old (=1533=). This is Bohort's son, Hélie le

Blank, whom Lancelot is delighted to see. Now, Dr. Sommer tells us

that, saving in the record of this infant's birth, the allusion to

it in the _Queste_, and the mention of Hélie being at Arthur's court

when Lancelot, Hector, and Perceval return from l'Île de Joie, there

is no mention of him in the prose _Lancelot_. It seems clear that a

large section of the _Agravain_ must have been omitted in the versions

consulted by Dr. Sommer.

Of the three subsequent adventures in Book VI., the final one, that

of the knight who smites off his lady's head, and is compelled by

Lancelot to do penance for his crime by carrying the dead body from one

court to another, is also in our two versions, but occurs at an earlier

point in the story. In both he is to go first to Arthur's court, then

to that of Baudemagus, and lastly to the King of Norgales. If all spare

his life he may live. =M.= departs from this by only directing him in

the first instance to go to Arthur's court: it is Guinevere who sends

him on to the Pope. The variant is probably Malory's own.

The other two adventures are not in either =D. L.= or =1533=. The

Perilous Chapel, I suspect, was taken over from a Perceval section.

Meliot de Logres, and the fetching of a piece of cloth from the chapel

of a 'Perilous Cemetery' are both in _Perceval li Gallois_ though not

connected with each other. It is noticeable that =M.= never refers

to the 'Perilous Cemetery' of the _Lancelot_ proper, that of the

upright swords, but drops out the reference to Galahad's achieving

of it, which must certainly have been in his copy of the _Queste_. I

think there may have been two Perilous Cemeteries, one of the Borron

_Lancelot-Perceval_, the other of the Map _Lancelot-Galahad_ cycles,

and that this is the first and older.

The adventure of the Lady and the Hawk in chap. xvi. I have not been

able to trace.

The events of =M.=, Book VII., are not recorded in either =D. L.= or

=1533=, with this possible exception, that when the knights return to

court after the adventures recorded above, and are called upon for an

account of their doings, Gawain relates how he fought with Gariette,

_not knowing that he was his brother_; which looks as if the story (not

related in detail) might represent a version of the similar encounter

in Book VII. It seems clear that, full as is the account given in both

these versions, the compilers still knew a great deal more than they

included.[170]

Books VIII., IX., and X. of =M.= follow the prose _Tristan_, and not

till Book XI. do we return to the _Lancelot_. This book opens with the

adventures at Corbenic (=D. L.=, Cambenoyc, Cambenoyt, or Cabenoyt).

=D. L.= fails to mention that the lady of the bath is naked, and

consistently calls the serpent of the tomb a serpent, never a dragon,

in this differing from the other versions. =1533=, at this point,

after relating the achievement of their adventures, has a curious

remark: '_Ainsi prend fin le premier volume des vertus et glorieulx

fais et gestes du noble et puissant chevalier Lancelot du Lac et des

compaignons de la Table Ronde_,' and then continues, without any break

of chapter, to relate the succeeding adventure with the Grail and

King Pelles' daughter. So far from this passage occurring at the end

of vol. i., the _Agravain_ section does not begin till fol. xxxix. of

the second volume of this edition. It is possible that when a critical

edition of the _Lancelot_ is prepared the above remark may be a guide

to an earlier redaction, in which Lancelot was not the father of the

Grail Winner. =D. L.= has nothing corresponding to this.

In the account given by =D. L.= of Bohort's visit to Corbenic, the

fight with the knight who keeps the bridge for love of Elaine is

omitted, but it was evidently in the source, as later on the knight

arrives at court as vanquished, and his name is then given as _Brimol

van Pleiche_, thus agreeing with =M.=, _Bromel la Pleche_, against the

_Brunet du Plaissis_ or _Plessis_ of =1533= and =S.= =1533= records the

combat.

On page 195 of the _Studies_ we read that Dr. Sommer's source contained

no passage to the effect of =M.=, p. 576, 30-32: 'Mervelle not said sir

bors / for this half yere he (Lancelot) hath ben in pryson with Morgan

le fay, kyng Arthurs syster /.' But =1533= gives it: 'il a este en la

prison ou il y a une dame plus dung an entier,' which is nearer the

real duration of Lancelot's imprisonment. This seems to indicate that

=M.= had a fairly full MS. source, from which he selected at pleasure.

Dr. Sommer gives no summary of Bohort's Grail adventures, so I cannot

tell if there be any interesting variants between the French versions,

but both =1533= and =D. L.= contain two features, not reproduced in

=M.=, which seem to indicate a knowledge of an older Grail tradition.

In both the old man tells Bohort that he has seen '_la lance

Vengeresse_' the '_wrake spere_,' he who sits in the Siege Perilous

shall know the truth of adventure.'[171] (This, of course, might be

Perceval equally as well as Galahad.) Galahad and Lancelot are not

mentioned throughout.[172] The Maimed King and the Fisher King are one

and the same person. All these points confirm my suspicion that the

Corbenic adventure was originally taken over from an earlier, probably

a Gawain, _Queste_.

In the events relating Elayne's visit to the court and Lancelot's

madness, =1533= and =D. L.= in the main agree with =S.=, but with small

variants. In both Elayne leaves the court of her own free will, but

Arthur does not escort her; she speaks to Bohort before leaving. The

knight encountered by Bohort is alone in =D. L.=, thus agreeing with

=M.=; while in =1533= he does not meet him till after he has rejoined

Lionel and Hector. The knights who go in search of Lancelot are in =D.

L.= thirty-two in number, and as later on we are told that twenty-five

have returned, this does not seem to be a mistake for twenty-three,

as we might otherwise think. =1533= does not give the original number

as thirty-two, but agrees with =D. L.= as to those who return, which

confirms this supposition.

In all that relates to Perceval and his first appearance at court, =D.

L.= and =1533= agree on the whole with =S.= rather than with =M.=, but

neither of them give any names of Perceval's brothers (save Agloval,

who fetches him from his home), nor say how many there were. Lamorak

is never mentioned (I believe this character belongs to quite a late

redaction). In this and in the reference to Gawain's having slain

Perceval's father, I think we have the influence of the _Tristan_.

In the account of Perceval's being driven from court by the mockery of

Kay and Mordred, =D. L.= has a remark which again shows the influence

of an earlier tradition: Perceval is described as '_Eene harde jonge

creature, ende die wel simpel sceen te dien_.' Nowhere else is there

any sign of the simplicity which is a primitive trait of Perceval's

character. Later on, after the 'Patrides' adventure (which appears to

be differently related from =S.= as it is from =M.=, Patrides and the

lady having fled together, been overtaken, and imprisoned), both =1533=

and =D. L.= agree in the words spoken by Patrides (=D. L.=) or the king

(=1533=), _i.e._ that Kay and Mordred have driven from court one who

should be a better knight _than all save Gawain_.

'_Ghi hebt entrouwen, dat secgic u,

Uter herbergen verdreven nu

Den besten ridder dier in was

Sonder Walewein sijt seker das._'--ll. 36247-50.

(=1533= says 'When he is grown to manhood' he shall be as good, etc.)

This certainly points to an earlier stage of tradition, when Perceval

and Gawain are the leading knights and Lancelot subordinate to both.

In view of what we now know, I think it is not an unreasonable

hypothesis that these two versions, which agree so closely, represent

an earlier pseudo-Borron _Lancelot-Perceval_ redaction, which has

been worked over in the interest of the later pseudo-Map _Galahad_

version.[173]

Book XII. =M.= gives the account of Lancelot's frenzy and subsequent

cure. Here =D. L.= agrees with =M.= in saying that Lancelot strikes

the shield as if X. knights did it, whereas both =S.= and =1533= give

XII. Later on =D. L.= is alone against the other three in saying that

Lancelot has only his ankles fettered, whereas the other three versions

give ankles and wrists. Nevertheless here I think =D. L.= is right,

as when Lancelot rushes after the boar both =S.= and =1533= agree in

saying that he breaks the rings on his ankles, and make no mention

of those on the wrist. Again =D. L.= makes no mention of hunters,

the horse Lancelot takes he finds tied at the castle gate. As later

on, when he comes up with the quarry no hunters are mentioned in any

version, I think it probable that they were not in the original, but

introduced later by some copyist to account for the boar.

At this point =D. L.= departs abruptly from the other versions, taking

up the Perceval story. It is impossible to say whether this be due to

a _lacuna_ in the source, which the compiler filled up as he pleased,

or whether this really represents an important (and apparently lost)

_Lancelot_ redaction. In the remainder of the incidents represented by

this book =1533= agrees on the whole with =S.=, with this important

difference, that it makes it quite clear throughout that there is a

period of some years involved. The reader quite understands all the

details of Galahad's arrival at the abbey, his age, etc. Very probably

the compiler of =1513= (Dr. Sommer's source) condensed here, as

elsewhere, thus causing the confusion noted on p. 205 of the _Studies_.

CHAPTER X

THE QUESTE VERSIONS

We now reach a very important point in our investigation. The

_Lancelot_ section of Malory is not only so much condensed, but also so

fragmentary in character, and, apparently, so capricious in choice of

incident that a critical comparison between the version there offered

and other forms of the _Lancelot_ story can never be productive of a

completely satisfactory result. It is one of those cases in which we

must be content with probability, and renounce the hope of arriving at

certainty. We have evidence enough to enable us to form an hypothesis

as to the _original_ character of the MS. used by Malory; of its actual

condition, whether complete or incomplete, and, if the former, of the

reasons which determined the compiler in his choice of incident, we

cannot yet speak positively. I doubt if we shall ever be able to do so.

But with the _Queste_ section it is different. As I remarked before,

this part of the _Lancelot_ cycle is far more homogeneous in structure

than the sections preceding or following it: it is a romance within a

romance, complete and rounded off in itself. Malory appears to have

felt this; he condenses still, it is true, but it is condensation, not

omission; he follows the sequence of incident accurately, begins with

the beginning, ends with the end, consequently we are in a far better

position for comparing his version with that of the other texts, and

can hope to arrive at a really satisfactory result.

The first noticeable variant is in the passage 'for of a more worthyer

mans hande may he not receive the order of knyghthode,' words spoken by

the abbess to Lancelot. These are not in =Q.= but are in =D. L.=:

'_Ende ic soude gerne sien dathi

Van uwer hant ridder werde, wildi;

Bedie van beteren man, sonder waen,

En mocht i ridderscap niet ontfaen._'--Book III. 61-64.

Also in =1533=: 'car de plus preudhomme que de vous ne pourrait il

recevoir l'ordre de chevalerie sicomme il nous est advis,' vol. iii.

fo. 67. Here then =M.=, =D. L.= and =1533= agree together against =Q.=

=W.= has 'for we think that a better than he could not receive that

dignity,' thus referring the phrase to Galahad--a probable misreading

of the original French.

In the account of the arming of Galahad, omitted in =M.=, =Q.= and =D.

L.= agree in saying that _Lancelot_ buckles on one spur, _Bohort_ the

other, whereas =1533= gives _Lionel_ and _Bohort_. This latter is, I

think, the right version, otherwise Lionel, though present, would have

no share in the ceremony. =W.= also omits Lionel, and makes Bohort only

bestow a kiss on the youth, Lancelot buckling on the spur, in this case

one only.

In the adventure of the sword in the stone we again find =M.=, =D. L.=

and =1533= in accord against =Q.= All three relate that Gawain attempts

to draw the sword and fails. This must be correct, as =Q.=, though not

saying that he makes the attempt, represents Arthur as telling him to

_laissies ester_ the moment he touches the hilt, words which both =D.

L.= and =1533= place in Arthur's mouth after the attempt:

'_Nu laet staen

Gi hebet wel min bevelen gedaen._'--ll. 231-2.

This latter phrase is evidently represented by =M.=: 'I thanke

yow (s)aid the kynge to (s)yre Gawayne /' =W.= records Gawain's

(Gwalchmei's) attempt, but not the king's speech.

According to =1533= no other knight makes the attempt. =D. L.= records

Perceval's failure, and says that after that none would essay the

venture.

'_Soe datmen vord daer niemanne vant,

Die daer an wilde doen die hant._'--ll. 255-56.

I suspect that =M.=, 'Thenne were there _moo_ that dur(s)te be (s)oo

hardy to (s)ette theire handes thereto /,' should be corrected by the

substitution or insertion of a negative (_no_ before _moo_ or _none_),

it would read more coherently. =W.= relates no attempt after Perceval,

but does not say definitely that no one essays the feat.

The result here is clearly, =M.=, =D. L.=, =1533= against =Q.=, with

special agreement of =M.= and =D. L.=, =1533= and =W.=[174]

In the case of Galahad's message to his relations at Corbenic, every

one of the versions gives a different rendering.