goes to see, and finds maiden and brother being ill-treated by eight
knights; slays three, rest fly. B. returns to L. who has disappeared;
spends night in forest. (=1533=, _goes with maid, who is daughter of
king of a hundred knights, to lodging, then with brother to find L.;
not doing so, returns and spends night with them. Departs next morning,
and hears L. has been seen chasing a knight._)
Line 29095. BOHORT, second visit to Grail castle. Tempts its
adventures. Cf. _supra_, pp. 160, 233.
Line 29695. LANCELOT comes to two tents, light, and a maiden and dwarf
in one, asks for lodging. Her lover will not allow her to give it.
Knight and brother ride up, throw L.'s armour out of tent. Fight. L.
slays one and wounds the other. Rides to a hermitage where he passes
night. Next day meets two maidens sitting by spring, would eat with
them. Maiden pursued by black knight runs up asking for aid, before
L. can reach his sword she is slain. L. very angry smites off knight's
head. Fourth night comes to forester's house in moon light.
Line 29952. LANCELOT and KAY. Cf. _supra_, p. 156.
Line 30380. LANCELOT after overthrowing knight of R. T. comes to two
pavilions, in one of which is maiden who cured him of poison. Sees
Bohort's son. Cf. _supra_, p. 157.
Line 30584. GAWAIN and his comrades return to court and hang up shield
L. has thrown down in middle of hall; telling how they were overthrown.
Queen much distressed that L. has not come, gives them rich garments in
order of valour. Bohort is best, then Gawain, Hector, Gariëtte, Lionel,
Bagdemagus (=1533= _omits Hector but gives others in same order_).
Kay arrives in L.'s armour. Other knights overthrown by L. come and
recognise shield. Next morning L. is seen coming, go out to meet him,
joust, and Gawain overthrows him, L.'s horse being weary. Great Feast,
A.D. 426 (=1533=, A.D. 225). A knight in white armour comes weeping, he
is probably going to his death. Gives L. a letter--if he dies he is to
read it aloud, if he survives return it. Sits in Perilous Seat, fire
descends and consumes him. He was Brumal (=1533=, _Brumant_), nephew of
King Claudas, who had vowed to prove himself a better knight than L.
who dare not sit there. Queen and L. talk apart, and she tells him of
Claudas's insult; he vows to avenge her, C. has taken Gannes, Benoyc
and _Aquitaine_. (=1533=, _Gaule and Benoyc_--[but Gaule was not yet
L.'s].) L. takes counsel with his friends and resolves on war. Brimol
van Pleiche comes, was conquered by B. at bridge of Corbenyc (not
recorded previously).
Line 31976. CLAUDAS prepares to resist A., gives all his nobles leave
to go, richly rewards those who remain; is promised help from Rome.
Line 32394. Recital of knights' adventures, recorded above.
Line 32755. War with Claudas told at great length. Valiant deeds of
Gawain, Hector, and Bohort. King and L. join army later. A.'s fight
with Frollo and winning of Gaul is placed here. Claudas finally
conquered, L. makes Hector king of Benoyc, Bohort of Gannes, Lionel of
Gaule (cf. _supra_, p. 201).
Line 35465. Feast at Camalot. Arrival of Elaine, L.'s madness. Cf.
chap. ix. pp. 161-163.
Line 35830. PERCEVAL. His arrival at court. Adventure with Patrides;
fight with Hector. Grail is vessel out of which Our Lord ate Paschal
lamb in house of Simon the Leper.
Line 36610. PERCEVAL and HECTOR come to house of a hermit who is priest
to the fisher-folk, who provide him with fish, etc. After riding some
time they come to house of a man, who had lodged L. six months before,
knows H. for his brother by likeness, L. was mad then.
(This is not in =1533=, which says, _Or dit le compte que grant piece
chevaucherent P. et H. ensemble per mainte terre estrange pour scavoir
se adventure les meneroit en lieu ou ilz peu(s)(s)ent trouver L. ains
chevaucherent maint yver et maint este ensemble._)
Line 36705. LANCELOT. Adventure at pavilion, imprisonment, and fight
with boar (cf. p. 163). Breaks off short here, as if MS. came to an end
and returns to
Line 36947. PERCEVAL returns to court. They do him great honour.
Damsel arrives (Grail messenger, but _Grail_ is not mentioned).
Castle Orguelous and Montesclaire ventures. (From this point source
is analogous to Chrétien.) Gawain will go to Montesclaire, Ywein to
Castle Orguelous, Kay and Griflet to 'Tere Dolorous' (not previously
mentioned), Perceval will ride through land, jousting with all whom
he may meet. Ginganbresil arrives, challenges Gawain. All ride forth,
Gawain, Agravain, Gariëtte, Ywein, Perceval, Griflet, Kay and Mordret
ride together for four miles, then separate.
Line 37105. GAWAIN adventure against Melias de Lis, and tournament as
in _Conte del Graal_.
Line 37584. KAY and AGRAVAIN go to seek Dolorous Castle. Meet maiden,
she will guide them thither if they dare to go there. Meet two knights
who will joust, K. and A. overthrow them, are attacked by eight and
finally taken prisoners, though A. defends himself stoutly. Will take
them to Castle D., before they have gone half a mile P. rides out of
side road. They attack him, but he puts them to flight, rescues K. and
A., the three take castle and sent lord prisoner to A.'s court.
Line 37855. YWEIN and GARIËTTE meet a dwarf, who leads them to the
Castle Orguelous. There they must joust against all comers. Ladies
watch from battlements, and as each knight is overthrown his lady sends
wreath of roses to victor. Thus they vanquish twenty. At last sixty
at once attack and overpower them, and they are led to castle, where
ladies insist on their being well treated.
Line 38000. MORDRET and GRIFLET are warned by hermit of danger they run
in going to Montesclaire. Ride on and are taken prisoners by tyrant who
will wed the lady of the castle.
Line 38133. PERCEVAL hears how Y. and G. have been vanquished at
Castle Orguelous. Rides thither with Kay and Agravain. P. overthrows
ten knights; K. and A. fifteen between them; when all attack them slay
twenty, wound fifteen, and take castle, setting Y. and G. and the
maidens free.
Line 38230. GAWAIN. Adventure with lady and chessmen in tower as in
_Conte del Graal_. G. is sent to find the bleeding 'white' spear. Comes
to hermitage, hermit tells him how Mordret and Griflet have been made
prisoners at Montesclaire, and are to be hanged in the morning. G. will
rescue them. Rises early, rides to hill where gallows already set up;
frees M. and G. Tyrant appears, fight fiercely, G.'s strength increases
at midday, overthrows tyrant, is fiercely attacked by his men.
Line 38990. PERCEVAL hears of M.'s danger; rides with Y., G., K., and
A. to aid. Comes up in time to help Gawain against four hundred men.
Slay tyrant and free maiden. Gawain wins sword 'metten vremden ringen,'
which will break if an unworthy knight handles it. Next morning
separate; G. goes to seek _Grail_ (which had not been mentioned
before), others return to court.
Line 39140. GAWAIN. Adventure with wounded knight and Château Merveil.
(Here we are told that _Merlin_ made the _Lit Merveil_. Here too G.
is warned he may not leave castle, but queen permits him to do so on
condition he returns in evening.)
Line 40060. Adventure with Guiromelant. Lady is Orgeloise. The queens
came into the land after the death of Uther Pendragon, and _King Lot_
(who in other romances is contemporary with Arthur), when there was
civil war in Logres. G. is girded for the fight by Tristram (who has
not previously appeared in the story). At prayer of Clareant a truce
is declared, and A. says Guir. shall wed his niece. Kay bears tidings
to G., who is so angry he vows he will not return to court. A. much
distressed. Twenty-four knights vow to seek G. for a year and a day.
Line 40785. QUESTERS come third day into wood. Voice from thicket bids
them stand; they may go no further unless they joust for it. Kay and
Dodinel overthrown. Knight asks Tristram's name; he will not tell it
unless knight tells his. He refuses; they fight fiercely till midday,
when they rest. Knight sees others coming and fears to be known; flies
into wood. Squire comes to seek T.; his wife is ill, must see him. T.,
K., and D. return. On way K. says he was overthrown unfairly. Knight
is in wood, overhears, comes out and challenges K. and D.; puts them
to the worse. T. and he fight again, lasts long, and T. is becoming
exhausted, when maiden appears seeking knight; it is Lancelot. They go
off together, and the three reach court safely.
Line 41013. PERCEVAL, who has separated from the others, comes to the
Castle of Orgeloise, who is besieged by old lover whom she left when
she rode off with Gawain. P. fights with and slays him. O. is hereafter
known as '_die goede joncfrouwe_.'
Line 41160. AGLOVAL (who is seeking P.) meets knight, who will not
reply to his greeting, but enters castle, arms himself, and attacks
A. It is Gregorias, who stole Gawain's horse. A. slays him. Comes to
castle, where old man receives him kindly. Greg. was his foe; his sons
are out seeking him. All rejoiced to hear of his death.
Line 41420. GAWAIN. Visit to Grail Castle as in Montpelier MS. of
_Conte del Graal_. Next day meets knight and maiden; former, hearing
G.'s name, challenges him--he has slain his father. They fight, and
desist, since it is no honour to fight with none to behold. Will fight
it out before court. He is Dyandras. G. goes to Scavaleon to report
ill-success of quest.
Line 41660. GARIËTTE and GRIFLET come to a tower where Hector is
imprisoned; find two knights ill-treating maiden for advising H.'s
release. Free her. H. appears to aid her (has escaped). Lord of castle
pursues them with twenty men. Perceval and Agloval arrive; slay eleven,
rest flee. All return to court.
Line 41845. GAWAIN goes to Scavaleon to fulfil compact with
Ginganbresil. Dyandras comes and claims his fight. King consults
counsellors; they judge that G. must fight _with both at once_. Squire
goes to warn King A., who comes with court to witness fight. After a
time would stop it, with king's consent, but Ginganbresil refuses.
Gawain's strength doubles, and he conquers both. King and one hundred
knights become A.'s men. Next day, rides homeward, stopping at castle
of Tibaut of Tintavel, where G. is warmly welcomed. Then all go to
Carlion.
Line 42540. Then follows _Morien_. Cf. _supra_, p. 150.
INDEX
Abel, 180.
Ade, 12, 13.
Agloval, 36, 150, 162.
Agravain, 137, 149, 152, 157, 160, 186, 194, 195, 199.
Aguisel, 71.
Alexander, 81.
Arimathea (Joseph of), 121, 126, 127, 133, 134, 139, 209.
Armorica, 56, 57.
Arnoul, 181.
Arnout, _v._ Arnoul.
Arthur, 13, 15, 17, 21, 30, 32, 40, 41, 46, 47, 50, 51, 55, 56, 60,
62, 63, 65, 67, 71, 94, 103, 106, 107, 110, 113, 126, 135, 141,
154, 167, 184, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204.
Astolat (_v._ Escarloet), 194.
Avalon, 59, 60, 64, 65, 126, 153, 204, 205.
Bagan, _v._ Vagan.
Balaan and Balaain, 73, 167.
Ban of Benoyc, 91, 92, 129, 143, 177, 185, 192, 200, 201, 210.
Barenton, 72.
Bath, 47, 48, 59, 60, 83.
Baudemagus, 41, 101, 137, 143, 154, 158, 170, 184, 185, 203, 204.
Beaurösch, 52.
Bedivere, 4.
Beforet, 12, 13, 14, 17.
Bel Inconnu, 97, 98.
Birch-Hirschfeld (Professor), 123.
Bleeding Tomb, 139.
Bohort, 21, 92, 121, 135, 136, 143, 144, 150, 153, 154, 156, 157, 160,
161, 163, 166, 168, 170, 178, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205.
Boiling Fountain, 139.
Borron (Robert de), 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 133, 158, 163, 210.
---- pseudo _v._ above.
Bors, _v._ Bohort.
Briant des Illes, 129, 130.
Brimol van Pleiche, 160, 186.
Brisane, 142.
Broceliande, 72, 82.
Bromel le Plêche _v._ Brimol v. P.
Brunel du Plessis _v._ Brimol v. P.
Brut (_v._ also Layamon and Wace), 4, 6, 56, 71, 105, 106.
Brynhild, 47.
Cærnant, 82.
Cahere, 198.
Camalot, 83, 196, 197, 198.
Caradigan, 82.
Caradoc, 4, 91.
Carduel, 82.
Carlion, 83.
Cath Palug, 60.
Celidoine, 177.
Champagne (Marie de), 42, 48, 114.
Chapalu, _v._ Cath Palug.
Charrette (Chevalier de la), 5, 6, 7, 11, 19, 20, 21, 27, 30, 49,
50, 52, 53, 68, 81, 83, 101, 103, 112, 115, 116, 138, 143, 149, 185,
188, 194, 206, 212.
Charrette (summary of poem), chap. iv. 40-42.
Chastel du Trespas, 153, 154.
Château Merveil, 121.
Chester, 82.
Chevalier au Lion (_v._ also Yvain), 6, 42, 50, 100.
Chevalier à la Manche, 18, 151.
Chrétien de Troyes, 5, 6, 7, 10, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 42, 43,
44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 95, 103, 115, 121, 131, 134, 140,
143, 149, 191, 210, 211, 212.
---- position in Arthurian cycle, chap. v. pp. 54-88.
Clarine, 11, 114.
Claudas (King), 4, 102, 129, 182, 183.
Claudins, 182, 183.
Cligés, 5, 6, 42, 68, 79, 81, 83, 115.
Conlaoch, 109.
Corbenic, 121, 138, 139, 159, 160, 161, 167, 168, 181, 182, 183, 186.
Cuchullain, 24, 58, 109.
Cybele, _v._ Sibile.
Diarmid, 109, 110.
Dinasdron, 82.
Dodine le Sauvage, 15.
Dodinel, 150.
Dover, 83.
Elaine, 142, 160, 161.
Elayne, _v._ above.
Eleanor of Aquitaine, 48, 114.
Elidiâ, 16.
Eliezer, 139.
Erec, 5, 15, 16, 64, 71, 79, 82, 115.
---- (poem), 5, 6, 11, 27, 42, 53, 64, 69, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 115, 130.
Ernoulf, _v._ Arnoul.
Escalot, _v._ Escarloet.
Escarloet, 135, 187, 196, 197, 198.
Esealt der lange, 16.
Falerîn, _v._ Valerîn.
False Claimant (story of), 34, 35.
Fata Morgana, 19.
Fier Baiser, 18, 19, 98, 99.
Fisher King, 129, 138, 161, 168, 169, 192.
Foerster (Professor), 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26, 44, 49, 50, 93, 188.
---- ---- theory of Arthurian evolution examined, chap v. pp. 54-88.
Frazer (Professor J. G.), 72.
Frollo, 4, 102, 126.
Furnivall (Dr.), _v._ Queste.
Gaheret, _v._ below.
Gaheriet, 15, 143, 150, 154, 158, 159, 172, 195, 196, 198, 199.
Galagandreiz, 12, 26.
Galahad, 97, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 129, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138,
142, 145, 146, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172,
174, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 191, 208, 209, 210.
Galehault, 136, 138, 147, 149, 153, 205.
Galehodyn, 153.
Galobrus de la Vermeille lande, 130.
Gandîn, 51, 116.
Garel, 53.
Gareth, _v._ Gaheriet.
Gariëtte, _v._ Gaheriet.
Gawain, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 31, 32, 33,
35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 51, 53, 57, 63, 67, 91, 93, 95, 99, 103, 108,
109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 120, 121, 129, 136, 137, 139,
143, 149, 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 166, 167, 169, 170, 173,
178, 183, 184, 185, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 208.
Genewîs, 11, 17.
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 20, 55, 56, 102, 104.
Gildas, 46.
Ginganbrisil, 149, 150.
Giraldus Cambrensis, 64.
Girard de Viane, 71.
Glastonbury, 46, 48, 59.
Godefroy de Leigni, 42, 44.
Goothe, _v._ Goth.
Gorres, 43, 47.
Got, 174.
Goth, _v._ Got.
Graal, Conte del, 121, 189, 212.
Graalent, 64, 65, 77, 87.
Grail (Holy), 78, 80, 90, 97, 100, 120, 123, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137,
138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 161, 163, 168, 169, 173, 181, 191,
192, 208, 209, 210, 212.
Grail castle (_v._ also Corbenic), 121, 150, 183, 192.
Grail Quest, _v._ Queste.
Graislemier de Fine Posterne, 64, 65.
Grand S. Graal, 101, 121, 126, 127, 133, 137, 138, 139, 175, 179, 192,
209.
Griflette, 150.
Guendolen, 100.
Guerresches, 159, 198, 199.
Guinevere, 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 32, 38, 40, 41,
43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 90, 96, 100, 103, 104, 106, 107,
108, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 129, 135, 138, 141, 142, 158, 182, 188,
197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 207.
Guingamor, 64, 65, 77.
Guinglain, 19.
Gurnemanz, 13, 26, 28, 80.
Hagen (Herr P.), theory of Grail origin, 29, 52, 78.
Hartland (Mr. E. S.), 34, 62, 73, 84.
Hartmann von Aue, 5, 16, 26, 27, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 75, 80, 116.
Hector, 21, 136, 139, 143, 152, 153, 157, 161, 163, 178, 195, 198,
200, 201.
Heinzel (Professor), 129, 130, 213.
Hélie le Blank, 157, 170.
Henry II., 48.
Hertz (Professor), 26, 95.
Iblîs, 13, 14, 16, 17, 27.
Ider, 4.
Idylls of the King, 114.
Iseult, 1, 5, 37, 38, 45, 113, 116, 117, 197.
Isle of Women, 22.
Iwân de Nonel, 27.
Iwanet, 95.
Iwein (_v._ also Yvain), 4, 49, 50, 52, 53, 95.
---- (_v._ Hartmann von Aue).
Iweret, 12, 13, 27.
Johfrit de Liez, 12, 26.
Kailet, 27.
Kamalot, _v._ Camalot.
Karados, 203.
Karnachkarnanz, 27.
Kay, 4, 22, 30, 31, 40, 41, 44, 50, 51, 60, 151, 155, 156, 162, 200.
Kei, _v._ Kay.
Ker (Professor), 23, 24.
Kiot, 28, 29.
Krône (Diu), 15, 22, 58, 80, 121.
Lady of the Lake, 23, 36, 94, 99, 138, 152, 207.
Lady of the Fountain, 67.
Lamorak, 162.
Lancelot, not a character of early Arthurian tradition, chap. i. pp. 1-7.
---- origin of name, 8, 9, 10.
---- rescuer of Guinevere, 15, 16, 40, 43.
---- origin of legend, 21-25.
---- _et le cerf au pied blanc_, chap. iii., 30-39, 151, 206-207.
---- (prose), chaps, vi., vii., viii., 89-146.
---- (Dutch), 30, 31, 38, 130, 131.
---- comparison of text, chaps, ix., x., xi., 147-205.
Lanval, 64, 65.
Lanzelet, _v._ Zatzikhoven (Ulrich von).
Laudine, 70, 74, 75.
Laudunet, 10, 74, 75.
Layamon, 4, 27, 56, 93, 104, 105, 106, 111.
Limors, 12.
Lionel, 21, 92, 135, 136, 143, 152, 153, 156, 161, 166, 170, 178,
195, 200, 201.
Lohengrin, 210.
Lohot, 130.
London, 83.
Lot (M. Ferdinand), 59, 62, 64, 74.
Lot (King), 13, 26, 93, 159.
Loth (M.), 60.
Louis VII., 48.
Lucan, 204.
Mabûz, 13, 14.
Maelwas, 8, 10 (_v._ also Melwas).
Maheloas, 64.
Maimed King, 138, 161, 169, 192.
Malduc, 15, 16, 80.
Malduz, _v._ Malduc.
Malehault (Dame de), 101, 129.
Malmesbury (William of), 59.
Malory, 23, 45, 46, 49, 90, 101, 104, 108, 114, 131, 151, 165.
---- comparison of text, chaps. ix., x., xi., pp. 107-205.
Mantle (Lai), 14, 19.
Map (Walter), 122, 125, 131, 163, 184, 210.
---- (pseudo), as above.
Marie de France, 61, 65, 66.
Mathoeus die felle, 154.
Mauduiz li Sages (cf. Malduc).
Maurîn, 27.
Meide-lant, 11, 14, 22, 94.
Meleagant, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 51, 52, 59, 60, 101, 118, 138, 143, 185.
Melians de Lile, 171.
Meliot de Logres, 158.
Melwas, 8, 46, 47, 59, 60, 118.
Méraugis de Portlesguez, 18, 73.
Merlin, 23, 34, 60, 91, 92, 103, 107, 117, 122, 126, 127, 138, 142.
---- (prophecies of), 100.
---- (Suite de), 23, 73, 92, 122, 137, 184, 185, 204, 209.
Modena (bas-relief at), 4, 56.
Mordred, 20, 93, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 115, 118, 126,
154, 156, 159, 162, 199, 202, 203.
Morgain la fee, 64, 99, 153, 156, 160, 199, 204, 207.
Morholt, 92.
Morien, 35, 37, 150, 174, 181, 207.
Mort Artur, 93, 104, 122, 126, 127, 135, 137, 138, 145, 148, 151,
159, 184.
Mort Artur, comparison of text, chaps, xi. 194-205.
Nohan (Dame de), 97.
Norgales, 153, 196.
Nutt (Mr. Alfred, _Studies_), 120.
Orguelleus de la Lande, 80.
Orgeluse, 112, 149.
Orgeloise, _v._ Orgeluse.
Ossenefort, 79.
Oxford, 83.
Pallada, 178.
Pant of Genewîs, 11, 91.
Paris (M. Gaston), 8, 9, 16, 32, 35, 40, 44, 60, 110, 150, 151, 188.
---- (M. Paulin), 96, 101, 124, 127, 137, 149, 155, 190, 213.
Parzival (Wolfram von Eschenbach's), 26, 27, 28, 31, 94, 95, 96, 112,
118, 140, 181, 212, 213.
Patrides, 162.
Patryse, 195.
Pelles, King, 112, 138, 139, 160, 167, 168, 169, 183.
Perceval, 3, 5, 6, 24, 26, 33, 36, 42, 63, 69, 71, 78, 81, 83, 91,
95, 96, 98, 115, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132,
133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 142, 146, 149, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163,
167, 168, 170, 173, 174, 175, 178, 179, 181, 191, 192, 207, 208, 209,
210, 211, 212.
---- Didot, 93, 126, 128, 134, 140, 191, 192, 205, 212.
---- li Gallois, 107, 127, 129, 134, 140, 158, 181, 191, 212.
Peredur, 8, 9, 10.
Perilous Cemetery, 139, 158.
Perlesvaus (_v._ P. li Gallois), 130.
Perseus (Legend of), 34.
Philip of Flanders (Count), 78.
Plurîs, 14, 15.
Queste, 34, 76, 101, 107, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130,
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 144, 145, 148, 150,
153, 161, 208, 209, 210.
Queste, comparison of text, chap. x. 165-193.
---- Welsh, 148.
Raguidel (vengeance de), 150.
Rajna (Professor), 6.
Rochedon (Duc de), 101, 153.
Rhys (Professor), 8, 10, 104, 108.
Rigomer, 18.
Scarloet, _v._ Escarloet.
Schofield (Dr.), 87, 98, 99.
Schrîenden Mose (den), 47.
Segramore, 5.
Shoreham, 83.
Sibile (l'Enchanteresse), 153.
Siegfried, 19, 24, 47.
Sommer (Dr., _Sources of Malory_), 49, 90, 131, 151, 214.
---- Summary compared, chaps. ix., x., xi., pp. 147-205.
Soredamors, 81.
Sorelois, 153.
Sorestan, 152, 153.
Southampton, 83.
Tanebor, 196, 197.
Tarquijn, _v._ Terriquen.
Terriquen, 152, 187, 200, 203.
Torec, 18, 151.
Tristan, 1, 3, 5, 6, 15, 16, 35, 37, 38, 51, 91, 92, 100, 103, 107,
109, 110, 111, 113, 116, 117, 125, 128, 137, 159, 162, 191, 197, 207.
Turquin, _v._ Terriquen.
Tyolet, 32, 33, 35, 63.
Urre of Hungary, 187, 194.
Uther Pendragon, 142.
Uwayne, 172.
Vagan, 170.
Valerîn, 14, 15, 47, 48.
Villemarqué (M. de la), 8, 10, 101.
Vivienne, 99.
Wace, 20, 56, 72, 93, 104, 106.
Wallingford, 83.
Walter of Oxford, 105.
Wechssler (Dr.), 78, 101, 117, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128, 132,
134, 137, 150, 159, 187, 191.
Widow of Ephesus, 69, 70, 76, 77.
Winchester, 83, 195, 196.
Windsor, 83.
Wolff (lais), 77.
Wolfram von Eschenbach, 52, 53, 94, 95, 121, 130, 134, 141, 149,
150, 191.
---- _v._ also Parzival.
Yonet, 95.
Yvain, 45, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 85,
94, 95, 96, 129, 153, 154, 155, 156, 202.
---- _v._ also Iwein and Chevalier au Lion.
Zatzikhoven (Ulrich von), 11, 17, 20, 29, 44, 46, 66, 80.
---- Lanzelet of U. _v._ chap. ii., 47, 66, 80, 91, 93, 94, 98, 99,
102, 206.
Zimmer (Professor), 9.
Appendix, pp. 215-247, not included in above INDEX.
Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, (late) Printers to Her Majesty at the
Edinburgh University Press
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Brut_, ed. Leroux de Lincy, vol. ii. ll. 10158-10360. These
remarks also apply to Layamon.
[2] Described and illustrated by Zimmerman in _Oberitalische Plastik
im frühen und hohen Mittelalter_: Leipzig, 1897. Cf. also _Romania_,
xxvii. p. 510.
[3] It is difficult to resist the conclusion that if the Welsh stories
were as late in date and as dependent upon French tradition as some
scholars maintain, Lancelot would certainly be mentioned in them.
[4] Cf. _Erec_, Foerster's ed., l. 1694; Hartmann's _Erec_, l. 1630.
[5] _Cligés_, Foerster's ed., ll. 4765-4798.
[6] The advocates of Chrétien as an independent and original genius
would do well carefully to consider the meaning of such curious
inconsistency. If Chrétien were dealing with matter either of his own
invention, or of his own free adaptation, he would surely have been
more careful of the unities. If, on the other hand, he simply retold
tales belonging to different stages of Arthurian tradition, this is
exactly what we might expect to find.
[7] In the opening lines of _Cligés_, Chrétien gives a list of his
works. This includes a version of the story of _Tristan_, and several
translations from Ovid. _Tristan_ probably preceded _Erec_, but there
is nothing to indicate the relative order of the other works.
[8] Signor Rajna has found the names of Arthur and Gawain in Italian
deeds of the first quarter of the twelfth century, and from the nature
of some of these deeds it is clear that the persons named therein
cannot have been born later than 1080.
[9] _Charrette_, ll. 2347-2362.
[10] _Romania_, vol. x. p. 492.
[11] _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_, chap. vi.
[12] The only adventure of the kind I can recall is that of the fiery
lance of the _Charrette_ and prose _Lancelot_, an adventure which is
the common property of several knights, and by no means confined to
Lancelot.
[13] _Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Litteratur_, vol. xii.
Heft I.
[14] _Der Karrenritter_, herausgegeben von Wendelin Foerster: Halle,
1899.
[15] Cf. _Anturs of Arthur_, where the ghost foretells to Gawain the
treason of Mordred, the destruction of the Round Table, and his own
death. Lancelot is not mentioned. Nor does he appear in _Syr Gawayne
and the Grene Knyghte_ or in _The Avowynge of Arthur_. In some of the
other poems, _Galogres and Gawayne_, _The Carle of Carlile_, _The
Marriage of Sir Gawain_, and _Sir Libeaus Desconus_ he is mentioned,
but plays no important part. The ballad of _Sir Lancelot du Lake_ in
the Percy Collection is a version of an adventure related in the Prose
_Lancelot_.
[16] Cf. _Karrenritter_, Introduction, p. xxxix.
[17] The materials for this study had been collected, and my conclusion
as to the origin of the Lancelot story arrived at, before the
publication of Professor Foerster's book. I am glad to find myself
supported in any point by such an authority, but think it well to avoid
misconception by stating that my results have been arrived at through
independent study.
[18] _Lanzelet_ von Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, ed. Hahn: Frankfurt, 1845.
Out of print and difficult to procure.
[19] This account, and the mention of England, l. 7054, seem to render
it possible that the original poem may have been written in this island.
[20] This is entirely in accordance with Tristan's character as
represented in the poems. He is in the highest degree _rusé_ and
resourceful.
[21] Is it not possible that this _Malduz_ the magician may be the
original of _Mauduiz li Sages_ whom Chrétien ranks as eighth of
Arthur's knights? Cf. _Erec_, 1699. Hartmann's version gives Malduiz;
_Diu Krône_, 1379, Malduz der Weise. The identification seems clear.
[22] I am quite at a loss to account for the mistake into which such
authorities as M. Gaston Paris and Professor Foerster have apparently
fallen. In M. Paris's study the idea that Lanzelet is the rescuer is
perhaps rather implied than stated, but when I wrote the _Charrette_
chapter (viii.) in my _Studies on the Legend of Sir Gawain_, in
which I followed the article in _Romania_, I was certainly under the
impression that the latter was the case. In the introduction to the
_Karrenritter_, p. xliv., Professor Foerster distinctly says that
Lanzelet frees the queen. I have read and re-read the text carefully
and made my final summary direct from it, and there is no doubt that
Lanzelet has nothing to do with the matter. The passage in question
is contained in ll. 6975-7445. How too did Professor Foerster come to
ignore the real character of Guinevere's imprisonment? Cf. _Charrette_,
lxxi.
[23] _Karrenritter_, Introduction, p. xliv.
[24] I think it is worthy of note that though Lanzelet is the hero of
the tale here and not Guinglain, Gawain's son, as elsewhere, yet in
this poem Lanzelet is Arthur's nephew, and of Gawain's kin, which he is
not in any other version. The _Fier Baiser_ is thus still restricted to
the family of Gawain.
[25] Cf. my _Legends of the Wagner Drama_, _Siegfried_.
[26] I say especially 'as told by Geoffrey and Wace,' for these writers
give us clearly to understand that the queen was a consenting party,
and no victim to Mordred's treachery. It is quite a different version
from that of the prose _Lancelot_.
[27] I shall have occasion to refer very frequently to Professor
Foerster's introduction. It is a full and powerful statement of views
which so far as they affect the origin and evolution of the Arthurian
legend I believe to be radically unsound. It is most useful to have at
hand a summary so clear and concise.
[28] _Merlin_, G. Paris and Ulrich's ed., vol. ii. pp. 136-137.
[29] In the prose _Lancelot_ the hero is always addressed as 'king's
son.' Cf. in this connection Professor Ker's review of my _Legend of
Sir Gawain_, Folk-lore, vol. ix. p. 266. I incline to think that the
question of a hero's possessing from the first a name and a well-marked
story depends upon whether he has or has not an existence in _myth_.
If of mythical origin he probably would have both, if an actor in
folk-tale very likely neither; thus while I should reject Professor
Ker's correction as regards _Gawain_, I would certainly hold it true
of _Lancelot_. In the case of this latter hero, I think his name may
well have been determined by his title du Lac. The tendency of early
verse is towards alliteration, probably mere chance determined the
_Lancelot_, the one essential was that it should begin with an _L_. It
should, I think, also be noted that while in the _Lanzelet_ the hero's
ignorance of his name and birth are genuine, in the prose _Lancelot_ he
knows who he is, and the wrong done to his father and uncle by Claudas.
The pseudonyms '_Filz du Roi_,' '_Beau Varlet_' are here unnecessary; a
meaningless survival from the original tale.
[30] This feature is, I think, peculiar to Wolfram; Chrétien does not
mention it.
[31] Professor Hertz, in his edition of the _Parzival_, p. 440, records
these points of contact, but does not discuss the question of the
relation of the two poems. Professor Foerster in his introduction
simply notes that the instruction by Johfrit de Liez recalls the
_Perceval_ story.
[32] Layamon '_Brut_' knows Maurin of Winchester as a kinsman of
Arthur's, ll. 20238 and 24336. I have not found the name elsewhere.
[33] It appears to me that, in view of Herr P. Hagen's excellent
demonstration of the correctness of the many curious Oriental
references with which the _Parzival_ abounds, and his remarkable
identification of Wolfram's Grail with a sacred _Bætylus_ stone, it is
impossible any longer to deny the possession, by Wolfram, of a source
other than Chrétien's poem. But whether the _Lanzelet_ offers another
proof or not I should hesitate to say. If it does, the evidence,
extending as it does over so much of the _Parzival_, is of the greatest
value as an indication of the extent of Kiot's work.
[34] _Lancelot_, ed. Jonckbloet, vol. ii. ll. 22271-23126. The
summaries in this chapter, and all subsequent references to the Dutch
_Lancelot_, are taken direct from the text. A summary of the romance
here discussed is given by M. Gaston Paris, _Histoire Littéraire de la
France_, vol. xxx. p. 113.
[35] Throughout the Dutch _Lancelot_ we have constant references to
Gawain's skill in healing. Cf. _Parzival_, x. 104. Chrétien does not
appear to know this trait in Gawain's character.
[36] The _lai_ of _Tyolet_ was published by M. Gaston Paris in vol.
viii. of _Romania_, '_Lais Inédits_.' I have given a prose translation
in vol. iii. of _Arthurian Romances unrepresented in Malory_.
[37] Cf. _Merlin_, Sommer's ed. chap. xxiv. p. 302.
[38] _Tristan_, vol. i. Book XIII., ed. Bechstein, _Deutsche classiker
des Mittelalters_; also my translation of same, _Arthurian Romances_,
No. ii. vol. i.
[39] Dutch _Lancelot_, vol. i. l. 42,540 to end. The portion dealing
with the adventure begins l. 43,593; the adventure itself, l. 46,514;
also summarised in _Hist. Litt._ vol. xxx.
[40] The poem itself has been discussed by M. Gaston Paris in
_Romania_, vol. xii., and by Professor Foerster in the introduction
to his edition. The question of Guinevere's rescuer has been treated
by Professor Rhys in his _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_, and in
M. Gaston Paris's article just referred to, and that on Ulrich von
Zatzikhoven's _Lanzelet_ in _Romania_, vol. x. I have also devoted a
chapter in my _Legend of Sir Gawain_ to the subject.
[41] The concluding portion of the poem is by Godefroy de Leigni,
who, however, worked with Chrétien's knowledge and approval, so that
practically the work may be held to be Chrétien's throughout.
[42] Livre, _Cligés_ and _Perceval_; conte, _Erec_ and _Chevalier au
Lion_. The concluding lines of the latter, 'qu'onques plus conter n'an
oï,' clearly indicate this. I shall return to this subject in the next
chapter.
[43] The manifold discrepancies of Chrétien's version were long ago
remarked upon by M. Gaston Paris, and even Professor Foerster, with all
his enthusiasm for the poet, is constrained to admit their existence,
but he considers some of the puzzles were of Chrétien's own making, and
he intended later to clear them up. Why then did he not explain them to
Godefroy de Leigni, who finished the poem with Chrétien's approval?
[44] I do not here include either the mediæval Welsh fragments or
Malory's account. The meaning of the former cannot be accurately
ascertained, and the latter practically represents the same version as
that of the _Charrette_ poem, though the question of _source_ cannot,
as I shall prove later on, be held to be definitely settled.
[45] Cf. Simrock, _Handbuch der deutschen Mythologie_, _Dornröschen_.
Some of the details of Arthur's journey to Valerîn's stronghold are
worth the attention of folk-lore experts, _e.g._ the curious account of
the _Schrîenden Mose_, that at certain times utters loud cries, _drî
tage vor sunegihten sô schrît daz mos und selten mêr_, and the curious
fish in its stream, which are '_ebenlanc und ebenkurz_,' and of which
'_die Engellende_' have many. Cf. _Lanzelet_, ll. 7040 _et seq._
[46] On these varying forms of the '_other-world_' dwelling, cf.
_Rassmann Heldensage_, vol. i. p. 152.
[47] _Legend of Sir Gawain_, chap. viii.
[48] As a rule, whenever in the _Iwein_ Hartmann does depart from his
source, it is with the effect of making the story more coherent and
probable. I have noted several instances of this in my study on the
_Yvain_ poems, _Modern Quarterly for Language and Literature_, July and
November, 1898.
[49] Cf. _Parzival_, Book VII. 1472.
[50] Cf. _Parzival_, Book VII., as above; also 590 _et seq._ and 1355
_et seq._
[51] Cf. _Der Gral_, P. Hagen: Strassburg, 1900. I am unable to accept
the author's contention that the _Bætylus_-Grail represents the
original form of the talisman; but he certainly proves the correctness
of the many curious references to Oriental literature which are
peculiar to Wolfram's version of the story, and cannot possibly have
been within that writer's own knowledge.
[52] In this connection, cf. Dr. Brown's study on _The Round Table
before Wace_, vol. vii. of _Harvard Studies_: Boston, 1900; and the
incidental demonstration that Layamon had access to Welsh traditions
unknown to Wace.
[53] For the first, cf. _Legend of Sir Gawain_, chap. ix., where I have
discussed the variants of the poem. For _The Marriage of Sir Gawain_,
cf. Mr. Maynadier's exhaustive study of _The Wife of Bath's Tale_,
vol. xiii. of the present series. In the case of the _Green Knight_
there are certain peculiarities of names which point to an intermediate
French stage, which, in this instance at least, cannot well have been
other than an Anglo-Norman poem.
[54] The French variant which seems to have most affinity with the tale
referred to is that of the Didot _Perceval_, printed by M. Hucher in
vol. i. of his _Saint Graal_, p. 453.
[55] Introduction, _Charrette_, p. cxxvii.
[56] Cf. 'Nouvelles Etudes sur la provenance du cycle Arthurien,'
_Romania_, vols. xxvii. and xxviii.
[57] Cf. _Artus Kampf mit dem Katzenungetum_, E. Freymond, Halle: 1899.
[58] _Romania_, vol. xxix. p. 121 _et seq._
[59] The evidence of the _lais_, and the fact that Marie de France
was Chrétien's contemporary, forbids us to postulate an entirely oral
transmission.
[60] Of this the '_runs_' of Celtic and Gaelic story-tellers form a
good example. Cf. Hyde's _Beside the Fire_, p. xxv.
[61] Mr. E. S. Hartland, to whom I submitted the question.
[62] Cf. M. Ferd. Lot 'La patrie des lais Bretons,' _Romania_, vol.
xxviii.
[63] Chap. iii.
[64] 'Morgue la Fée et Morgan Tud,' _Romania_, vol. xxviii. p. 327.
[65] Professor Foerster's references to this character (_Charrette_,
lxxiii.) are perplexing. He prints Chrétien's description of the
'Ile' side by side with a parallel passage from Giraldus Cambrensis,
_Topographia Hiberniæ_, informing us that both are 'ganz einfach eine
naturgetreue Beschreibung von Irland.' He cannot mean us to understand
that the one description is borrowed from the other; the work of
Giraldus is at least thirty years later than the _Erec_ (_circa_
1186), and that chronicler would hardly go to a romancer like Chrétien
for the description of a country he knew personally. But _is_ it a
'_Naturgetreue_' description of Ireland at all? Professor Foerster is
compelled himself to admit naïvely, '_Gewitter und Stürme fehlen nicht
ganz_!' Is this not rather a description of the fabled Irish Paradise
which Chrétien and Giraldus alike have borrowed from a source common to
both?
[66] Of course I here use the word _Breton_ in a general sense as
opposed to _French_. I do not intend to imply that Arthur is of
_Continental_ origin.
[67] _Ueber die Bedeutung von Bretagne, Breton_, Zeitschrift für
französische Sprache, xx. 79-162.
[68] Cf. chap. ii.
[69] Cf. _Charrette_, lxxxi. and cxli.
[70] Cf. on this point Professor Foerster's Introductions to his
editions of the _Yvain_, 1887 (large ed.), 1891 (small ed.).
[71] Cf. Grisebach, _Die Treulose Witwe_: Wien, 1873.
[72] Cf. review of _The Legend of Sir Gawain_. Zeitschrift für
französische Sprache, No. 20, p. 95.
[73] Cf. Gautier, _Epopées Françaises_, vol. ii. p. 89 ff.; also
Helisant, in _Garin le Loherain_.
[74] Cf. _Brut_, ed. Leroux de Lincy, vol. ii. ll. 13597-99.
[75] Cf. _The Golden Bough_, J. G. Frazer.
[76] Cf. _Merlin_, ed. Paris and Ulrich, vol. ii. pp. 44-56; _Meraugis
de Portlesguez_, ll. 2915 _et seq._
[77] _Vide supra_, _Legend of Sir Gawain_, Zeitschrift für franz. Spr.
[78] M. Ferd. Lot, to whom I am indebted for the verification of this
passage, writes: 'Le () répresente un léger blanc occasionné par un
défaut du parchemin, en sorte qu'on pourrait lire en deux mots _Lan
donez_ (d'où _l'ont donez_); on peut lire La_n_-donez aussi bien que
La_u_donez.'
[79] Cf. Introduction to _Yvain_, large edition, where it is referred
to as G.
[80] Cf. chap. x. p. 182, where the passage referred to is given in
full.
[81] To say, as Professor Foerster does, that the spring=grave is to
misrepresent the incidents; the castle in which the lady dwells is some
distance from the spring, as we see in Yvain's chase of his flying foe.
[82] I do not know that it is has any real bearing on the question,
but the passage from _Flamenca_ quoted by Wolff (_Lais_), p. 51, is
curious: '_L'uns viola lais del cabrefoil, E' l'autre cel de Tintagoil;
l'uns cantet cels des fis amanz, E l'autre cel que fes Ivans._'
[83] P. cxli. _et seq._
[84] It should be noted that Professor Foerster offers no arguments; he
only makes assertions. There may, or there may not, have been a Grail
romance which knew nothing of Perceval, certainly we have no traces
of such, but how _can_ we tell what would be the character of such
a story? There are any amount of theories on the subject. Wechssler
has his, Hagen his, diametrically opposed to each other. Theories
unsupported by proof are useless as argument. Professor Foerster is
very fond of telling us this; but the moment we get on to the question
of Chrétien de Troyes and his sources, _adieu_ proof. We are wrapped in
the mists of subjectivity.
[85] The italics are mine.
[86] Cf. _Erec_, l. 1526; list of knights, l. 1691 _et seq._
[87] Cf. _Erec_, l. 1699; Hartmann, _Erec_, l. 1635; _Diu Krône_, l.
1379 (Adventure of the Cup); _Lanzelet_, ll. 7353-64.
[88] If Malduz, or Malduc, were a well-known enchanter, and connected
with the Arthurian story, as he appears to have been, how did he vanish
from it? Was it the greater popularity of _Merlin_ which displaced him?
What is the origin of his name? It sounds as if it might be Celtic, or
can he be in any way connected with Maugis, the resourceful cousin of
'_Les quatre fils Aginon_'?
[89] So far as the _Perceval_ story is concerned, there is certainly
evidence of varying forms, _e.g._, Whence did the continuators of
Chrétien, notably Gerbert, draw their versions? And what of the
_Perceval_ embodied in the Dutch _Lancelot_, which appears to be
independent, so far as the working out of the adventures suggested by
the Grail messenger are concerned, of any known version?
[90] Professor Foerster's attempt to base an argument on the source
of _Cligés_ cannot for a moment be accepted, cf. Introduction,
_Charrette_, cxxxviii. We only know that the source was a book; but
what that book contained, no one can say. We can never argue from the
_un_known to the known. We do not know much of Chrétien's sources for
the other poems, but the grounds for an investigation _do_ exist in
the above instances, they do _not_ in _Cligés_. We must find out how
Chrétien dealt with _Erec_, _Yvain_, and _Perceval_ before we are in
a position to offer the slightest hypothesis as to his treatment of
_Cligés_. The fact that Mark of Rome gives a short summary of the story
is interesting, but so brief a _résumé_ is of little critical value. It
is certainly not a _book_, therefore cannot possibly be identical with
Chrétien's source.
[91] On this subject, cf. any scientific collection of folk-tales,
_e.g._, _The Science of Fairy Tales_, by Mr. E. S. Hartland, or in the
same author's _Legend of Perseus_, the tabulated variants of the Dragon
story in vol. iii. These would help the reader to realise the number
of _motifs_ often combined in a single story. The _lais_ of _Lanval_,
_Graalent_, and _Guingamor_, comparatively short though they be, yet
combine at least three distinct story-_motifs_, _i.e._ what we may call
the Joseph and Potiphar's wife, Tannhäuser, and Lohengrin themes. Any
one of these _lais_ would be capable of considerable expansion.
[92] I have studied the _Yvain_ versions carefully, and have read
those of _Erec_, but not compared them critically; but I should not
be surprised if it were ultimately found that in _The Lady of the
Fountain_ we have the story at a stage anterior to Chrétien, and
probably that at which it came into his hands, _redacted by the Welsh
scribe under the influence of Chrétien's poem_; while in _Geraint_
we have the process reversed, _i.e._ a rendering of _Chrétien's poem
modified by the earlier version_. In the statement, '_Gwiffert Petit
he is called by the Franks, but the Cymry call him the Little King_,'
we have, I think, a hint of this. The writer must have been too good
a French scholar to think the one term a translation of the other; it
rather implies that the Welsh knew the character only by a sobriquet
borrowed from his diminutive size, which is exactly what we should
expect, the earlier stages of story-telling being anonymous. So far as
the correspondence in word and dialogue is concerned, the conclusion
to be drawn depends entirely on the nature of the parallel passages;
if they be merely such ordinary dialogue (question and response) as
would naturally spring from the incidents of the story, both may well
be reminiscences of the oral version. Analytic, self-communing passages
would, of course, point to a later stage in evolution; but the Welsh
version dialogue is of the simplest description.
[93] Professor Foerster recognises this argument in a measure, but does
not appear to realise its full bearing.
[94] I should myself be inclined to limit Chrétien's share in the work
to the rearrangement of existing combinations. I do not think he ever
made any new combination, unless it were in the case of _Cligés_, and
that is only a 'perhaps.'
[95] Cf. _Lays of Graalent and Lanval_, p. 175.
[96] The printed editions of the prose _Lancelot_ chronicled by Dr.
Sommer, _Sources of Malory_, p. 8, note, are 1494, Ant. Verard; 1513,
Philippe Lenoire; 1533, Jehan Petit. There was also an edition 1533,
_Philippe Lenoire_, which represents a very important text, and one
which Dr. Sommer does not appear to know. A copy is in the Bodleian
(Douce collection).
[97] It is difficult to know exactly what value to place on the
traditional relationship of uncle and nephew as postulated of Arthur
and Lancelot in the poem of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven. This is so
completely a _lieu commun_ of heroic romance. Except in the case of a
hero of distinctly mythical origin such as Gawain, I am inclined to
consider it as marking a secondary stage in the evolution of a hero,
he would have attained to a certain degree of popularity before it
was postulated of him--thus Perceval and Caradoc are each, in turn,
Arthur's nephews. In the case of Lancelot it probably represented an
intermediate stage between entire independence of Arthur (the original)
and son of a faithful ally (the final) form.
[98] _Merlin_, Sommer's ed., chap. xxxiii. The _Lancelot_ legend
appears to me to offer a very interesting parallel to the methods
employed by the compilers of the _Chansons de Geste_, which are so
ably pointed out by M. Leon Gautier in his _Epopées Françaises_. The
original story of the hero forms a nucleus from which other romances
depart in a downward direction--dealing with sons and, perhaps,
grandsons;--in an upward, dealing with father and grandfather--till
a complete cycle is thus formed. We have exactly this process in
_Lancelot_--the _Queste_ extols the deeds of his son, the _Merlin_
those of his father; and we have indications that the story was well
on the way to the evolution of a secondary branch, that of Bohort and
his son. None of the other Arthurian heroes has undergone a parallel
development.
[99] Cf. _Merlin_, ed. Paris and Ulrich, vol. ii. pp. 137, 143.
[100] _Ibid._ pp. 231 _et seq._
[101] Cf. _Merlin_, ed. Sommer, chap. xxvii. It may be as well here
to remark that Professor Foerster apparently attributes considerable
importance to the pseudo-historical account of Arthur's wars with the
Saxons contained in the prose romances, notably the Vulgate _Merlin_
(cf. _Charrette_, p. xcvi., and review of _Legend of Sir Gawain_,
Zeitschrift für Franz. Sp., Band 20, p. 102), asserting that the prose
romances contain, side by side with the later, the remains of the
oldest stages of Arthurian tradition. To me it seems patent that these
romances have simply borrowed from the _Chronicles_. There is nothing
in them which cannot be found in Geoffrey or his translators, and the
fact that they represent the _romantic_ legend in a demonstrably late
form, and not in one consonant with the pseudo-historic indications,
while there is no trace of any fundamental revision of the story,
such as might be expected, seems to make it quite clear that they
are of comparatively late invention. They by no means stand on the
same footing as do Wace and Layamon, which are of distinct value in
determining earlier forms of the legend. To take one instance alone,
the _Merlin_ gives a long account of the sons of King Lot, who play a
most important part in the action of the story, but the genuine early
tradition gives Gawain no brother save Mordred, and Layamon distinctly
says, 'he wes Walwainnes broðer, næs þer nan oðer' (ll. 25467-8). The
existence of these sons marks a secondary stage in the story; but they
are in all the _prose_ romances. An exception should perhaps be made in
favour of the Didot _Perceval_, which gives the _Mort Artur_ section in
a form differing from the other prose romances and much more closely in
accord with the _Chronicles_. I shall return to this point later on.
[102] The two accounts should be carefully compared.
[103] Cf. _Parzival_, Book III. l. 937 _et seq._ I unfortunately
omitted to note the reference in the prose _Lancelot_. The passage is
on p. 127, vol. iii. of M. Paulin Paris's abridged edition.
[104] Cf. _Parzival_, Hertz, n. 66, p. 495.
[105] Cf. _Lais inédits_, M. Gaston Paris, _Romania_, vol. viii.
[106] Lancelot's eagerness to receive knighthood should be compared
with that of Parzival. Thus Lancelot says to Yvain, 'Dictes a
monseigneur le roy qu'il me face chevalier comme il a promis--car ie
le veuil estres sans attendre plus,'--and again, 'ie ne seray plus
escuyer.' prose _Lancelot_, ed. 1533, vol. i. Cf. this with _Parzival_,
Book III. ll. 1001-2, 'nune sûmet mich nicht mêre phleg mîn nâch riters
êre,' and 1158-9, 'i'ne wil niht langer sîn ein kneht, ich sol schildes
ambet hân.' The correspondence is striking.
[107] 'En verité ce varlet n'est mye bien sage, ou il a este mal
enseigné.' Yvain suggests that a woman has forbidden him to tell his
name (which might be compared with _Parzival_, Book III. l. 1464). By
his speech he must be _de Gaulle_. Ed. 1533, vol. i. (The 1533 edition
has in each volume a summary of chapter contents, thus reference is
easy.)
[108] MS. 751, fol. 144 vo., quoted by M. Paulin Paris in vol. iv. of
_Romans de la Table Ronde_, p. 87.
[109] This _Dame de Nohan_ is probably the same as the _Dame de Noauz_
mentioned in the _Charrette_, l. 5389.
[110] Cf. _Romania_, vol. xxvi. p. 290.
[111] _Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 65.
[112] M. Marillier in a review of the _Voyage of Bran_ and _Legend of
Sir Gawain_, contained in _Revue des Religions_ (July-August 1899),
is inclined to connect the adventure of the _Fier Baiser_ ascribed to
the son with the adventure of the _Marriage of Sir Gawain_ ascribed to
the father. Both are disenchantment stories, and both appear to belong
to the class of disenchantment by personal contact. The point is an
interesting and a suggestive one.
[113] The character of the fairy and the nature of Lancelot's
upbringing demand a special study, for which, so far, the materials are
not available. The Lady of the Lake touches on the one hand the Queen
of the Other-World, on the other, Morgain la Fee. I understand that a
study on the characters of Lady of the Lake, Vivienne, and Morgain, is
being prepared under the direction of Dr. Schofield. For the details
of Lancelot's childhood, we must wait till a critical edition of the
prose _Lancelot_ shows us whether we have any variants or traces of
early redactions, to bridge the gulf between the poem of Ulrich van
Zatzikhoven and the final prose romance.
[114] Cf. Introduction to M. Paulin Paris's _Romans de la Table Ronde_,
p. 81 _et seq._, also M. de Villemarqué's _Merlin_, p. 121.
[115] Dr. Wechssler's interesting study on '_die verschiedenen
Redaktionen des Graal-Lancelot Cyklus_' will be referred to later on.
It is an excellent statement of certain aspects of the problem, but
further research shows some of his conclusions to be very doubtful. His
judgment with regard to the _Queste_ variants is certainly at fault.
[116] l. 8050 _et seq._
[117] Cf. Rhys, _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_, chap. iii. The
author remarks that to this day in some parts of Wales it is held an
insult, as implying a reflection on her moral character, to call a girl
Guinevere.
[118] 'Arthur gave in charge all that he had to Mordred and the queen.
That was evil done that they were born, for the land they destroyed
with sorrows enow. And at the end themselves the Worse (devil) began to
destroy that they there forfeited (lost) their lives and their souls,
and ever since are loathed in every land, that never a man will offer
prayer for their souls.'
[119] This line is lacking in the oldest MS., but can be supplied from
the later recension: 'Man knew not, in sooth, whether she were dead
(and how she hence departed), whether she herself were sunk in the
water.'
[120] The _Merlin_ of course deals with a period anterior to this
_liaison_, but as we possess it, it has been, as we saw above, redacted
under the influence of a tradition of which the amours of Lancelot and
Guinevere formed an integral part.
[121] Cf. _Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 76 _et seq._
[122] On this point, cf. my _Legend of Sir Gawain_, Mr. Maynadier's
_Wife of Bath's Tale_ (both in Grimm Library), and M. Marillier's
article in _Revue des religions_ (July-August, 1899), already referred
to.
[123] I have purposely omitted Tristan, as, though a Celtic hero, he is
only indirectly connected with Irish tradition.
[124] I am glad to find that M. Gaston Paris evidently holds this
view, as in a note to his discussion of the tradition that Roland was
Charlemagne's son as well as his nephew, in the _Histoire Poétique de
Charlemagne_, he refers to Gawain as holding the same position.
[125] The above remarks of course refer to Gawain as connected with
Arthur; originally he was probably independent. As our knowledge stands
at present, the parallels between Gawain and early Irish tradition
appear to belong mainly to the _Ultonian_ cycle; while in the case of
Arthur the parallels are rather to the _Ossianic_.
[126] In some versions eighty.
[127] As far as English opinion goes, the popularity of Tennyson's
version of the Arthurian tales has operated disastrously in confusing
the question. Not long ago a writer contributed to a review an article
on the subject, in which he contended for the essential identity of
the _Tristan_ and _Lancelot_ stories, naming among other parallels
the fact that in both cases the hero is sent to fetch home his lord's
bride--an addition due to Tennyson; Lancelot in the genuine story
being unborn at the date of the marriage. As regards the _Idylls_, it
can only be said that whereas Malory's juxtaposition of half a dozen
different compilations made confusion of a subject already more than
sufficiently complex, Tennyson's edifying rearrangement of Malory
made that confusion 'worse confounded.' Malory is highly valuable for
the Arthurian legend in his proper place, when critically compared
with other versions; and has a separate and independent position as
an English classic. The _Idylls of the King_ may perhaps also be
considered an English classic, but is _entirely_ outside the range
of critical Arthurian scholarship, and should _never_ be quoted as
evidence for the smallest tittle of Arthurian romance.
[128] I am not quite certain on this point. Certainly the _Perceval_
story is earlier than we commonly suppose, and I think we may find that
it had reached the ecclesiastical ascetic stage at quite an early point
in the evolution of the _Lancelot_ story.
[129] Cf. Wechssler, _Über die verschiedenen Redaktionen des
Graal-Lancelot-Cyklus_, p. 17.
[130] _Merlin_, Sommer's ed., chap. xxvi. p. 343; _Perceval_, l. 9546
_et seq._; _Parzival_, xii. ll. 1306-7, xiii. l. 542 _et seq._; also my
_Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 75 _et seq._
[131] I have purposely excluded the Melwas-Meleagant story from this
comparison. I am not clear that it was, in its origin, a tale of
conjugal infidelity; it rather appears to me to be a _Pluto-Proserpine_
abduction tale. The abductor _may_ at one period have been Guinevere's
lover; but, as we now have it, the queen is the innocent victim of
violence. Further, it is evident that the abductor had ceased to be
the lover _before_ the introduction of Lancelot into the story (cf.
_Lanzelet_). Therefore, if originally an infidelity story, we are met
by the same perplexing gap in the tradition as we find in the Mordred
version.
[132] Cf. references under heading 'Gawain.' They are scattered
throughout the book.
[133] Cf. _Grand S. Graal_, ed. Hucher, pp. 271 and 289-93.
[134] Dr. Wechssler's caution is quite right, nevertheless I think we
may eventually find that Borron was really the author of some sort of a
cycle.
[135] Dr. Wechssler contends for this, as the correct title, rather
than _Grand S. Graal_.
[136] Cf. _supra_, p. 17.
[137] Cf. _supra_, p. 14.
[138] Cf. _supra_, p. 9.
[139] _Die Sage vom Heiligen Gral, in ihrer Entwicklung bis auf Richard
Wagner's Parsifal_: Halle, 1898.
[140] Obviously added by M. Paulin Paris.
[141] On this point I need only refer to M. Gaston Paris, Introduction
to the Huth _Merlin_, p. viii.
[142] I do not discuss here how far this romance represents the
original Borron-Perceval poem. As it stands, it is certainly not
Borron's work. The question is, are we to consider it the work of a
later writer, or does it represent an early _Perceval_ romance, worked
over for cyclic purposes?
[143] Some years ago, when preparing my translation of the _Parzival_,
I found in the _Gesta Comites Andegavorum_ a summary of the closing
events of Arthur's life closely agreeing with that of the Didot
_Perceval_. The connection between Perceval and Angevin tradition has
not, in my opinion, received sufficient attention.
[144] We have seen reason to believe that the original _Perceval_ story
did early affect the _Lancelot_, and this argument, which we used at
first of the independent, becomes strengthened when we examine the
cyclic form.
[145] If this be true, it would throw an interesting light on the
conjunction of the _Queste_ and _Perceval li Gallois_ in the well-known
Welsh MS. translated by the Rev. R. Williams. The compiler of the MS.
may have had versions of the two _Lancelot_ cycles before him and have
taken the _Queste_ from each, perhaps doubtful which was the right
version.
[146] Hucher, vol. i. p. 421.
[147] Quoted by Professor Heinzel: '_Über die französischen
Gralromane_,' p. 177. The parallel passage is on p. 279, vol. ii. of
Dr. Evans' translation, _The High History of the Holy Grail_; but it is
not included in the Welsh translation.
[148] Professor Heinzel's study did not come into my hands till the MS.
of this chapter had been sent to the press. The support afforded to
my theory by the above expression of opinion was most welcome to me.
A point which deserves notice in connection with this romance is the
appearance in it of the above-named _Briant des Illes_, and the story
of the death of _Lohot_, King Arthur's son. So far as I know, no other
prose romance knows either of these characters, but Chrétien refers to
both in his _Erec_, ll. 6730 and 1732. I think it is possible that the
name given by Wolfram von Eschenbach to Arthur's son, _Ilinot_, may
rest upon a misreading of _Lohot_; the story connected with the latter
is certainly curiously archaic in detail.
[149] I cannot at all agree with Dr. Wechssler's view that the Galahad
_Queste_ has been largely worked over; on the contrary it has been the
least tampered with of all the Arthurian romances. I shall show this
presently by comparison of texts.
[150] The worst fault of Dr. Wechssler's Grail study is that he
predicates the distinctive traits of Perceval as being of Galahad--to
whom they never in any sense belonged. Galahad is not Perceval's
understudy, much less is he his original: he is an absolutely and
entirely independent creation. The only quality they have in common is
that of virginity, which is not of them, but of the monkish redactors
of the legend. It is certainly no part of the primitive _Perceval_ tale.
[151] The passage which represents Gawain as admitting himself to be
the slayer of eighteen out of the twenty-two knights who have lost
their lives in the _Queste_, Baudemagus, his dearest friend according
to the _Merlin Suite_, among them, should, I think, be printed at the
end of the _Queste_, not at the beginning of the _Mort Artur_, where it
is now generally found. It is entirely in accordance with the tone of
the first named romance, and out of keeping with the latter. Moreover,
both the Dutch _Lancelot_ and the 1533 version print it in the former
position. The compiler of the _Tristan_ has generally been supposed
to be the first to introduce the vilification of Gawain's character;
in the light of Dr. Wechssler's suggestion it would be interesting to
examine whether this presentment is to be found in the _Tristan before_
its contamination with the later _Lancelot-Map_ cycle. I think there
were peculiarities in the original Gawain story, which, misunderstood
by later compilers, helped to cast a false light on his character,
but it is open to question whether it was the _Tristan_ compiler or
the author of the Galahad _Queste_ who was the original propagator of
calumny.
[152] The _Queste_ writer dwells upon instances of heroes betrayed
through their love of women--Samson, Solomon, etc. If he had known the
earlier _Lancelot-Borron_ story, with the instance of Merlin's betrayal
by the lady who brought up Lancelot, he would surely have made use of
so very _à propos_ an illustration.
[153] I suspect this sword of being the sword of the original Perceval
story, for which an edifying legend has been invented. It probably
belongs to a very early stage of the tradition. I hope some day to make
it the subject of special study.
[154] Cf. the Perceval of Chrétien, and more especially the Parzival
of Wolfram, with the hero of the Didot _Perceval_ or _Perceval li
Gallois_. I consider the two first represent the independent, the two
latter the cyclic form.
[155] It may be noted here that in Wolfram's version of the _Perceval_
story--a version which, as we have seen, has certainly influenced the
_Lancelot_ legend--the Grail-bearer, Repanse-de-Schoie eventually
becomes the mother of Prester John. The circumstance that the details
of the begetting of Galahad are found in the _Lancelot_, and not in the
_Queste_, suggests the consideration that the author of this latter
romance may have worked over the section of the _Lancelot_ in question,
so as to bring it into superficial accord with his story. Or he _may_
have worked in conjunction with one of the later redactors.
[156] Chrétien does not appear to know anything about him: in the
_Charrette_, for instance, had he known Bohort as represented in later
legend, he would certainly have made him, and not Gawain, undertake the
conflict with Meleagant, for which Lancelot threatens to be too late.
The role of 'helpful friend,' played by Gawain in the earlier versions
of the legend, is passed over to Bohort in the later.
[157] On this point cf. what I have said before as to the development
of the _Chansons de Geste_; p. 92 note.
[158] 1. Edited by Dr. Jonckbloet, 2 vols., 1850, will be referred to
as =D. L.=
2. Edition in 3 vols., a complete copy is contained in the Douce
collection in the Bodleian Library, referred to as =1533=.
3. _Morte Arthur_, edited by Dr. Sommer, vol. iii., _Sources of
Malory_, the sections entitled _The Lancelot Proper_, _The Quest of the
Holy Grail_, and _La Morte au Arthur_; all three are referred to as =S.=
4. _Queste del Saint Graal_, ed. Furnivall--=Q.=
5. _Morte Arthur_, Sommer (vol. i. text)--=M.=
6. The Welsh _Queste_ (ed. Rev. R. Williams, 1876), which I have
also consulted, being, in its available form, the translation of a
translation, scarcely affords reliable ground for comparison; it is,
moreover, a very free rendering of the text. Nevertheless, as it is
well to make use of all available versions, I have, in the cases where
the original text appears to be fairly represented, added this reading
under the heading =W.=
[159] Cf. Jonckbloet, _Roman van Lancelot_, vol. i. p. lvii.
[160] To speak quite correctly it really begins rather before the
_Agravain_ proper. I have noted this further on. M. Paulin Paris
remarks (_Romans de la Table Ronde_, vol. v. p. 296), with regard to
the _Agravain_, that we find it 'le plus souvent copié isolément, ou
bien complétement séparé des autres parties.' One of the useful hints
of this scholar which might have earlier been taken into consideration.
[161] In this connection it is amusing to find Dr. Wechssler (_Sage
vom Heiligen Gral_, pp. 166-167) remarking complacently that the
achievement of the adventures announced by the Grail Messenger '_wird
nirgends erzählt_.' The Dutch _Lancelot_ has been edited and available
for _fifty_ years. I must own that the result of my examination of
this, and of the version of 1533, equally available, has been to
seriously shake my belief in the soundness and reliability of foreign
criticisms of the Arthurian cycle. It is quite clear that the material
at our disposal, limited as it is, has not yet been properly examined.
[162] The romances not being named in the =D. L.=, I have adopted for
convenience' sake the names given to them by M. Gaston Paris.
[163] Abstracts of these episodic romances are given by M. Gaston
Paris, in vol. xxx. of _Hist. Litt. de la France_.
[164] Dr. Sommer says, and correctly, that the '_pomier_' must be the
older version.
[165] This account of Lancelot being found asleep and carried off by
three queens should be compared with that of Renouart found sleeping
and carried off to Avalon by three 'fays.'
I assume throughout that Dr. Sommer's summary correctly represents his
text, but I admit that I have my doubts on this point; certainly in the
_Queste_ section he gives some most mistaken readings; indeed, apart
from the evidence of =D. L.= and =1533= the whole _Lancelot-Queste_
section needs revision. It is unfortunate that some foreign scholars
have been so ready to accept Dr. Sommer's statements without taking the
trouble to verify them.
[166] I do not think this is a proper name, but the equivalent of
_Grave_=Count.
[167] No other version mentions, as does =M.=, that the ladies won
their living by 'al maner of sylke werkes,' but the whole story looks
so like a copy of Yvain's adventure at the Château de Pesme Aventure
that I think it may have been in his source.
[168] Of course M. Paulin Paris's book, being greatly condensed and
modernised, cannot be used for textual criticism; but the compiler
was a scholar of very wide learning, and there are numerous notes
and hints, which we, of a later generation, make a great mistake in
disregarding.
[169] This lady, never mentioned by =M.=, plays an important rôle in
the prose _Lancelot_.
[170] Here I take the opportunity of saying that I entirely dissent
from Dr. Sommer's assertion that Gareth is the equivalent of the
French _Guerresches_ rather than _Gaheret_. It is this latter (in the
=D. L.= _Gariëtte_) which =M.= renders by Gareth. I have paid a good
deal of attention to this question, and have come to the conclusion
that, although in the descriptive summary of King Lot's sons, found
in the _Lancelot_, Guerresches (Gurrehes) is said to be the youngest,
save Mordred, and Gawain's favourite, yet the adventures ascribed to
Gaheret (variants, Gaheriet, Gariëtte, Garhiës) throughout mark him as
the original of Gareth; a point which etymology alone would, I think,
decide in his favour! This much is certain, wherever =M.= and the
French versions can be compared we find Gaheret and _not_ Guerresches.
When Dr. Sommer takes it upon himself, as he does in the quotations
from the French contained in the _Mort Artur_ section, to arbitrarily
change the _Gaheret_ of all the foreign versions into _Guerresches_,
because the latter agrees with his preconceived ideas, he is setting
what I must consider as a most undesirable precedent; we cannot take
these liberties with the texts and hope to arrive at a satisfactory and
scientific conclusion. As pointed out in my review of Dr. Wechssler's
Grail Study, once allow such a substitution, and what is to prevent
us from a series of editions emendated to suit the personal views
of each editor? I think myself that Gaheret and Guerresches may
originally have been one, but that confusion arose from Mordred being
sometimes considered as Lot's, sometimes as Arthur's, son, and that a
tradition of _four_ sons of King Lot having been established early in
the evolution of the romantic story, the personality of the third was
doubled to make up the correct number. This is only a suggestion, but
there is certainly a confusion as to identity in the French versions,
though there is no confusion as to the original of =M.=
[171] It seems likely that this was in =M.='s source, as we read that
the old man has a spear in his hand, 'and that spere was called the
spere of vengeaunce.' But the old man never speaks of it to Bors.
[172] As regards the mention of Galahad and Lancelot in =1533=, I find
I have no special note. They are certainly not in =D. L.= and the two
versions are in such habitual accord that I think I must have noted it
had they differed here. Still, I think it only fair to point out my
omission.
[173] On p. 200 of the _Studies_ there is a mistake. Dr. Sommer speaks
of the fight between _Bors_ and Perceval and their healing by the
Grail. It should, of course, be _Hector_, not _Bors_. We may note here
that in this instance the Grail is stated to be the dish out of which
Our Lord ate the Paschal lamb in the house of Simon the Leper; there is
no mention of its containing the Blood of Christ, or of its being borne
by a maiden as in =M.=
[174] There is no mention of Balyn's sword: this is clearly an
interpolation of =M.=
[175] This passage throws into strong relief the absolute unreality of
the Galahad _Queste_. The hero knows all about the Grail, its keeper,
where it is to be found, his own relation to it. He has grown up
under its shadow as it were. Nor need he fulfil any test to gain it:
in all the records of his adventures there is no temptation such as
that undergone by Perceval or Bohort; he is as fit to become keeper
of the Grail (for this and not Grail-_King_ he practically becomes)
when he leaves Arthur's court as when he finally, after a series of
aimless adventures, arrives at Corbenic. Contrast this with the earlier
versions: the hero knows nothing of the Grail; not till after he has
beheld the Talisman and failed to accomplish the necessary test does he
even hear the name; when he would make amends for his negligence he can
no longer find the castle, and not till he has proved himself worthy
through long-continued trial is the opportunity once lost again offered
to him. Neither do the inhabitants of the Grail Castle know their
deliverer; they hope that it may be he, since they believe none other
might find the way, but they do not know him, whereas Galahad is well
known to the dwellers in Corbenic.
[176] Dr. Sommer's description of the swearing of the questers, on p.
210 of the _Studies_, is utterly wrong. In every version Arthur calls
on Gawain to swear first, when Baudemagus interposes, saying that he
who is to achieve the quest should be the first to swear. Consequently
Galahad swears first, and is followed by Lancelot, Gawain, Perceval,
Bohort, Lionel and Hélie le Blank. Baudemagus is in no instance the
first to swear.
[177] Dr. Sommer's summary is again misleading, and entirely
misrepresents the general character of the incident.
[178] _Studies_, p. 212.
[179] Cf. Dr. Sommer's remark on p. 212. I cannot recall a single
instance in which the equivalents to =M.= give any other reading.
[180] On p. 212, Dr. Sommer states that =Q.= does not, at this point of
the story, say what becomes of Perceval. This is wrong; =Q.= distinctly
says he leaves Lancelot _to return to the recluse_.
[181] In his summary of the conversation on p. 213, Dr. Sommer again
misrepresents his text--_all_ agree in saying that Perceval asks his
aunt about his mother and 'parens,' not that the aunt asks Perceval!
[182] The adventure of Perceval on the rock agrees closely with that of
Mordrain in the _Grand S. Graal_. There also are two ships--in one a
man who encourages, in the other a woman who tempts, him. In both cases
the woman accuses the man of being an enchanter; in both her ship is
covered with black silk, and she departs in a tempest. Cf. Hucher, _Le
S. Graal_, vol. ii. pp. 354, _et seq._
[183] _S. Graal_, ii. p. 444.
[184] As I said before, this _may_ be due to the influence of
_Morien_, but we must not overlook the fact that this poem certainly
has some curious points of contact with the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von
Eschenbach, which also knows of the hero (or more accurately here, his
son) regaining his kingdom, which he also does in _Perceval li Gallois_.
[185] The scribe of the original MS. may have had to condense on
account of space here, which is contrary to the usual practice of
=1533=; but in a printed edition it is not easy to decide the real
value and significance of such omissions.
[186] =1533= _ten_, representing the number as thirteen, Galahad taking
the place of Our Lord. This is a point on which we might expect to find
different readings, according as the compiler held, or did _not_ hold,
Judas to have been present at the Institution--a question on which a
difference of opinion has always existed.
[187] This is the passage to which I referred in connection with the
Yvain sources, p. 76. This son of King Claudas is, no doubt, the same
who played such a valiant part in the war between Lancelot and his
father, related at great length in the _Lancelot_.
[188] This arrival of the nine knights at the Grail Castle, and their
share in the Grail revelation, is a striking proof of the unreality of
the Galahad _Queste_ quâ _quest_, on which I have remarked elsewhere.
Who are these knights? What claim have they to be admitted to a feast
so holy that even King Pelles and his son are excluded? Practically
they are as much achievers of the Quest as Galahad himself. The fact
is the writer is so taken up with the religious symbolism of the relic
that in exaggerating and insisting on symbolic details he loses sight
of the real point of his story. I very much doubt whether any one but
the Grail Winner himself ought to reach, or was ever contemplated
as reaching, the Grail Castle, much less be witness of the full
explanation of the relic. To this it may be objected that Gawain
reaches it; but Gawain was certainly at one time looked upon as the
Grail Winner, and I believe it is only in this character that he ever
found the castle. The accessibility of Corbenic is a _very_ weak point
of the Galahad _Queste_.
[189] I cannot agree with M. Gaston Paris's suggestion that this
passage, which he takes as part of the _Mort Artur_, refers to an
earlier _Queste_ redaction. A _Queste_ giving a full account of the
fate of so many of the knights engaged would be of portentous length,
and there is absolutely no sign of this Galahad _Queste_ having existed
in another form. I regard it as a summing up, by the author, of the
general results of the expedition, a _postscriptum_ which enabled him
to have a final fling at his _bête-noire_ Gawain. The addition of
Baudemagus's name may have been his work, or that of a copyist, and
designed to give point to his accusation. Whether the tradition that he
should be killed by Gawain arose from this passage, or was incorporated
in the _Merlin_ from another source we cannot say. The Baudemagus
tradition demands study. In the _Merlin_ he is represented as but
six years older than Gawain, whose dearest friend he is, but in the
_Charrette_ he appears as quite an old man, whose son, Meleagant, is
the contemporary of Gawain and Lancelot; while in the prose _Lancelot_
and _Queste_ he appears as the devoted friend of the family of King
Ban, sharing the adventures of these young knights on an equal footing.
The whole presentment is hopelessly confused. The frequent reference
to the Arthurian records, as kept in the 'almeryes' at Salisbury,
appears to me to be a parallel case to the allusions in the Charlemagne
Romances to the records at S. Denys. I suspect there is as much, or as
little, truth in the one ascription as in the other.
[190] Cf. _Studies_, p. 214. Dr. Sommer uses as an argument for this
the difference of spelling in the name of _Corbenic_, but this proves
nothing. =D. L.= has at least four ways of spelling this word, and
sometimes a variant occurs in the space of a few lines. The general
character of the name is always preserved, and in MSS. that have been
frequently copied, to say nothing of printed, the substitution of one
letter for another is too frequent to call for remark.
[191] Dr. Wechssler in his _Lancelot_ study announces solemnly, '_So
viel aber steht für uns fest, dass Malorys Quelle für sein sechstes
Buch nicht die Branche eines Cyklus, sondern ein selbständiges
Originalwerk gewesen ist_' (_Gral-Lancelot_, p. 35). But we now see it
was beyond any doubt part of a cyclic work.
[192] Cf. Appendix, p. 237.
[193] I take this opportunity of strongly protesting against the
tone assumed by Professor Foerster on the question of Malory. He has
not himself examined the question of the sources, but has simply
accepted all Dr. Sommer's far too hasty and inadequately founded
conclusions. When he says, on p. lxv. of the _Charrette_, '_Der
überall seine Quellen und zwar nur seine Quellen und obendrein noch
treu wiedergebende Malory ist ein Phantasiegeschöpf der Walliser und
Engländer_,' he is simply dogmatising in an unwarrantable manner on a
question with regard to which he has no _locus standi_. Exaggerated as
the statement is, and is meant to be, it is infinitely nearer the truth
than are many of Professor Foerster's own hypotheses.
[194] Cf. Appendix, p. 241.
[195] The passage quoted by Dr. Wechssler (_Gral-Lancelot_, p. 60,
_et seq._), and which he considers belongs to an earlier version of
the _Queste_, is manifestly only a condensed variant of the ordinary
_Queste_ into which an allusion to Tristan and Pallamedes has been
clumsily introduced.
[196] This seems to point to the fact that the _Agravain_ section of
the _Lancelot_ is that which offers the most important variants, and
is the most likely to reward the careful critic. The final section is
practically based upon a romance foreign to the original _Lancelot_
story, and which has been incorporated into it; consequently we may
expect to find all the versions in pretty general agreement as regards
the _Mort Artur_ proper.
[197] Cf. _Studies_, p. 220.
[198] Cf. Appendix, p. 237.
[199] Referred to in future as =M. A.=
[200] As I have said before, there can be no doubt which of the two
is the prototype of Gareth; also, subsequent study has shown me that,
outside the _Lancelot_ proper and the romances which have been modified
for cyclic purposes, we rarely find any mention of Guerresches, whereas
we often meet with Gariët. I am strongly of opinion that originally the
two characters were one, and that in that earlier form the knight was
Gaheriet or Gariët.
[201] _Studies_, p. 254.
[202] Throughout this section it must be borne in mind that =S.=
systematically replaces the _Guerresches_ of his text by _Gaheriet_.
This latter sides throughout with Gawain.
[203] It is of course possible that a negative may have dropped out
here.
[204] On p. 260, Dr. Sommer makes a strange mistake. We are told that
Bohort fights against Ywain; to this Dr. Sommer appends a note of
exclamation, and a footnote to the effect that Ywain has already been
killed by Gawain, as related in the _Queste_. Of course it was not
the '_Chevalier au Lion_,' but his bastard half-brother, '_Yvain li
avoutres_,' who was slain on that occasion. The text of =Q.= is quite
clear.
[205] On p. 261, Dr. Sommer again falls into a curious error of
identity. We are told that King Karados assists at the council between
Arthur, Lancelot, and Gawain, when the fight is determined upon. Dr.
Sommer reminds us in a note that Karados had been previously slain
by Lancelot! That was, of course, the giant of that name, brother
to Turquine; _this_ is the famous Karados '_Brief-bras_,' sometimes
regarded as Arthur's nephew. Dr. Sommer's apparent lack of familiarity
with the minor characters of the Arthurian cycle is inexplicable.
[206] On p. 263 the parallel passages quoted from =M.= and the English
=M. A.= make mention of _Baudemagus_ as one of Lancelot's councillors,
whereas at the end of the _Queste_ his death at the hand of Gawain is
recorded. Cf. this with my remarks on the Baudemagus legend, p. 184. I
do not think this story of his death was a genuine part of the cyclic
_Lancelot_, but belonged to another line of tradition known to the
author of =Q.= from the Merlin _Suite_, and unintelligently quoted by
him. This, which is a real discrepancy, as there is but one Baudemagus,
Dr. Sommer does not remark upon!
[207] Cf. chap. i. p. 5.
[208] (_a_) chap. ii., the _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven;
(_b_) chaps. iii. and iv., _Le cerf au pied blanc, Le Chevalier de la
Charrette_; (_c_) chaps. vi., vii., and viii., the prose _Lancelot_.
[209] Cf. chap. vii., _The loves of Lancelot and Guinevere_.
[210] Cf. pp. 97, 124, 129.
[211] I do not here intend to imply any opinion as to the _original_
nature of the Grail, only to refer to the undoubted fact that _as
connected with Perceval_ it is more or less religious in character.
[212] Dr. Sommer's study on Malory is a case in point. It is a work
of great extent, carried out with the most painstaking perseverance,
yet because he omitted to consult such accessible texts as the Dutch
translation and the Bodleian _Lancelot_, and assumed the general
unanimity of the printed versions, a very important section of his work
is largely deprived of value, and urgently requires revision.
[213] The parallel with the edition of 1533 begins vol. ii. fo. xxxix.;
with the abstract of M. Paulin Paris, vol. v. chap. cxxii. That is,
somewhat earlier than the beginning of the _Agravain_ section proper.
[214] Is this perhaps the Sir Marrok of the were-wolf story?--=M.=,
Book XIX. chap. ix.; also vol. iii. of _Arthurian Romances
Unrepresented in Malory_.
[215] =D. L.= always has the form _Walewein_.
[216] This name is spelt _Hestore_ throughout. On the whole the
spelling of proper names in =D. L.= is very erratic, and varies greatly.
[217] This adventure of the Perilous Cemetery is one of the
'cross-references' to which I have referred earlier. It is mentioned
both in _G. S. Graal_ and _Queste_. The wording here is not very
clear, but it does not, I think, mean that Lancelot has already failed
in the Grail adventure, but that he shall come to the cemetery after
he _has_ failed; which is fulfilled in _Queste_. At the same time we
must remember that in _Perceval li Gallois_, which knows nothing of
Galahad or the _Queste_, Lancelot fails for the same reason, and more
completely, as the Grail does not appear at all in his presence, so
this _may_ refer to the earlier story.
[218] It may be noted that Chrétien knows nothing of a dove connected
with the Grail, whereas Wolfram does.
[219] I have before remarked on the uncertain spelling of this name in
=D. L.=, the above is the more usual form.
[220] From this it appears that Gawain's failure at the Grail castle
was in no way due to any defect of _character_, but to his omission
of the reverence due to the Grail, of the sacrosanct nature of which
he was ignorant. This explanation appears to me to be peculiar to the
_Lancelot_ version, which otherwise, as I have pointed out, regards
Gawain with great respect.
[221] Certain details in this adventure recall that of the 'Joie de la
court' in _Erec_.
[222] I think this is probably the explanation of A.'s vision, when
he sees G. after death surrounded by the souls of poor men 'who have
helped G. to conquer the heavenly kingdom.' Cf. Sommer, _Studies_, p.
266.
[223] These passages illustrate the difficulty previously referred to,
of identifying the original of Gareth. I believe it can only be done by
comparing the parallel adventures in =M=. and his source.
[224] In the account of the final battle all versions I have consulted
give one hundred thousand on each side killed; the above is much more
reasonable.
[225] There is a _lacuna_ of a few lines here in =D. L.=, so this may
well have been in the text.
[226] This adventure of Ywein and the giant's shield should be compared
with _Meraugis de Portlesguez_, ll. 1418 _et seq._ There lady has taken
dwarf's horse; and it is the eye, not the hand, which the messenger
loses. I believe the above to be the older version, as, though
L'Outredotez is always spoken of as a knight simply, Meraugis once
refers to him as a _giant_, which must have come from another version.
[227] This appears to be a reminiscence of Merlin and Vivienne. Cf.
_Merlin_, Sommer's ed., chap. xix.
[228] Cf. this with _Studies_, p. 186; also remarks, _supra_, p. 153.
[229] It is quite possible that we have here the story of Urre of
Hungary, which may well have been given at greater length in one of
the _Lancelot_ MSS. Also the source of Malory's version of Lancelot
being wounded by a maiden, Book XVIII. chap. xxii., where the prose
_Lancelot_ gives one of his squires.
[230] M. Paulin Paris omits this adventure in his summary, which only
records the _Lancelot_ sections. It is thus apparently lacking in the
MS. used.
[231] This is one of the adventures referred to previously, cf. pp.
137-139, _Grand S. Graal_, vol. iii. p. 303 _et seq._ It is worth
noting that it is only in the passages parallel to _Grand S. Graal_
that L.'s relations with queen are spoken of as sinful.
[232] This does not fit in with indications of story, which would place
Galahad's birth considerably earlier, L.'s visit to Corbenic being some
two or three years previous.
[233] All this section of Lancelot's adventures, from his meeting with
Sarras of Logres, differs very much from M. Paulin Paris's summary. Cf.
_Romans de la Table Ronde_, v. p. 322 _seq._
* * * * *
Transcriber's Notes
Obvious typographical errors have been corrected, but other variations
in spelling, punctuation, and the use of accents have been retained,
except where in conflict with the index.
Italics are shown thus _italic_ and bold thus =bold=. The long s is
represented by (s). The Old English letter yogh is represented by [gh].
A vertical elliptical symbol on page 174 (Chapter 5) is represented
thus ().
A missing "the" was added in Chapter 5: "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."