Chapter I: Part 1

</pre>

Produced by Louise Hope, Robert Cicconetti and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

[Transcriber’s Note:

This e-text includes characters that require UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding, including:

ſ (long “s”)
Ȝȝ (yogh)
m̅ (m with over-line; the equivalent “n” form is shown as
ñ with tilde for better font support)
ǽ (æ with accent, only in the Glossary)

There are also a few letters with macron (“long” mark). If any of these characters do not display properly--in particular, if the diacritic does not appear directly above the letter--or if the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a last resort, use the Latin-1 version of the file instead.

Unlike most EETS productions, this book was printed with long “s” (ſ). The editor’s Introduction says:

We find, in the MS., both the long and the twisted _s_ (ſ and s).
These have been noted down as they occur, though I do not observe
any law for their use. The letter “ß” has been adopted as closely
resembling a symbol in the MS., which apparently has the force of
double _s_, and is not unlike the “_sz_” used in modern German
hand-writing.

An italic form of þ (thorn) was apparently not available to the printer. In the modern parts of this e-text, the letter has been italicized when context seems to warrant it. In the poem, all italics--representing expanded contractions or abbreviations--are shown with {braces} as “se{n}t” or “{and}”. Other italics are shown conventionally with _lines_. To reduce visual clutter, italics in folio numbers (“1 _b_”) are unmarked. The change in labeling from “21, 21b” to “22a, 22b” appears to be accidental.

Large initial letters in the primary texts are marked with leading double ++ as “++Messire”, “++Maist{er}”. The random variation between capital and lower-case letters after an initial is as in the original. Superscripts are shown with ^ alone. Unless otherwise noted, the superscripting continues to the end of the word.

In the Glossary, ȝ (yogh) is alphabetized as z.

In the printed book, some line numbers were moved or omitted for reasons of space; they have been silently regularized. Sidenotes giving folio numbers are shown as printed. Other sidenotes have been moved to the nearest convenient sentence break or major punctuation. Where practical, footnotes are grouped together, preferably before headnotes, stanza breaks (random) or decorative capitals. Headnotes have been moved to agree with the text, and will generally not coincide with printed page breaks.

Except for footnotes and similar, all brackets [] are in the original. Conversely, except for the indented stanzas at ll. 699-719, all blank lines within the poem were added by the transcriber.]

The Romans
of
Lancelot of the Laik.

Dublin: William Mcgee, 18, Nassau Street.
Edinburgh: T. G. Stevenson, 22, South Frederick Street.
Glasgow: Ogle & Co., 1, Royal Exchange Square.
Berlin: Asher & Co., Unter Den Linden, 11.
Boston, U.S.: Dutton & Co.
New York: C. Scribner & Co.; Leypoldt & Holt.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.

LANCELOT OF THE LAIK:

A Scottish Metrical Romance,
(About 1490-1500 A.D.)

re-edited
From a Manuscript in the Cambridge University Library,

with an
Introduction, Notes, and Glossarial Index,

by
THE REV. W. W. SKEAT, M.A.,

Late Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge;
and Translator of the Songs and Ballads of Uhland.

[Second and Revised Edition, 1870.]

LONDON:
Published for the Early English Text Society,
By N. Trübner & Co., 60, Paternoster Row.
MDCCCLXV.

6
John Childs and Son, Printers.

PREFACE.

I.--DESCRIPTION OF THE MS., ETC.

A former edition of the present poem was printed for the Maitland Club, in 1839, and edited by Joseph Stevenson, Esq. It has saved me all trouble of transcription, but by no means, I am sorry to say, that of correction. Those who possess the older edition will readily perceive that it differs from the present one very frequently indeed, and that the variations are often such as considerably to affect the sense. Many of the errors in it (such as _casualtyee_ for _casualytee_, _grone_, for _gone_, _reprent_ for _repent_) are clearly typographical, but there are others which would incline me to believe that the transcription was too hastily executed; several passages being quite meaningless. Near the conclusion of Mr Stevenson’s preface we read: “The pieces which have been selected for the present volume[P1] are printed with such errors of transcription as have crept into them by the carelessness of the scribe;” a statement which certainly implies that there was no intention on his part of departing from the original. Yet that he sometimes unconsciously did so to such an extent as considerably to alter (or destroy) the sense, the reader may readily judge from a few examples:--

[Footnote P1: The volume contains other poems besides “Sir
Lancelot.”]

LINE. EDITION OF 1839. TRUE READING OF THE MS.

26. fatil (_fatal_), fatit (_fated_).
285. unarmyt (_unarmed_), enarmyt (_fully armed_).
682. can here, cam nere.
700. rendit (_rent_), vondit (_wounded_).
764. refuse (_refusal?_), reprefe (_defeat_).
861. felith (_feeleth_), ſetith (_setteth_).
1054. vyt, ry{ch}t.
1084. speiris, spuris.
1455. cumyng (_coming_), cunyng (_skill_).
1621. he war, be war (_beware_).
1641. promyß, punyß (_punish_).
2010. ane desyne, medysyne.
2092. born, lorn (_lost_).
2114. havin, harm.
2142. Hymene (!), hyme (_him_).
2219. such, furth (_forth_).
2245. al so y-vroght, al foly vroght.
2279. chichingis (!), thithingis (_tidings_).
2446. love, lore (_teaching_). Etc.

Several omissions also occur, as, _e.g._, of the word “off” in l. 7, of the word “tressore” in l. 1715, and of four whole lines at a time in two instances; viz., lines 1191-4, and 2877-80. It will be found, in fact, that the former text can seldom be safely quoted for the purposes of philology; and I cannot but think Mr Stevenson’s claim of being accurate to be especially unfortunate; and the more so, because the genuine text is much simpler and more intelligible than the one which he has given.

The original MS. is to be found in the Cambridge University Library, marked Kk. 1. 5. It formerly formed part of a thick volume, labelled “Tracts;” but these are now being separated, for greater convenience, into several volumes. The MS. of “Lancelot” has little to do with any of the rest as regards its subject, but several other pieces are in the same hand-writing; and, at the end of one of them, an abstract of Solomon’s proverbs, occur the words, “Expliciunt Dicta Salamonis, per manum V. de F.”[P2] This hand-writing, though close, is very regular, and my own impression certainly is that the scribe has almost always succeeded in preserving the sense of the poem, though there is much confusion in the dialectal forms, as will be shewn presently.

[Footnote P2: See Mr Lumby’s editions of “Early Scottish Verse”
and “Ratis Raving,” both edited for the E.E.T.S. from this MS.
Only the latter of these is in the hand-writing of V. de F.]

The present text is as close a fac-simile of the MS. as can be represented by printed letters, every peculiarity being preserved as far as practicable, even including the use of _y_ for _þ_ (or _th_); so that the reader must remember that _yow_ in l. 94 stands for _thow_, and _yis_ in l. 160 for _this_, and so on; but this ought not to cause much difficulty. The sole points of difference are the following:

1. In the MS. the headings “Prologue,” “Book I.” etc., do not occur.

2. The lines do not always begin (in the MS.) with a capital letter.

3. The letters _italicized_ are (in the MS.) represented by signs of contraction. One source of difficulty is the flourish over a word, used _sometimes_ as a contraction for _m_ or _n_. I have expanded this flourish as an _m_ or _n_ wherever such letter is manifestly required; but it also occurs where it is best to attach to it no value. In such instances, the flourish occurs most frequently over the last word in a line, and (except very rarely) only over words which have an _m_ or _n_ in them. It would thus seem that their presence is due to the fact of the scribe wanting employment for his pen after the line had been written, and that the flourish therefore appears over certain words, not so much because the _n_ is _wanting_ in them, as because it is _there already_. Such words have a special attraction for the wandering pen. Still, in order that the reader may know wherever such flourishes occur, they have all been noted down; thus, in l. 46, the stroke over the _n_ in “greñ” means that a long flourish occurs drawn over the whole word, and the reader who wishes to expand this word into “gren{e}” or “gren{n}” may easily do it for himself, though he should observe that the most usual form of the word is simply “gren,” as in lines 1000, 1305.

In a few nouns ending in _-l_, the plural is indicated by a stroke drawn through the doubled letter; as in _perillis_, _sadillis_, etc.; and even the word _ellis_ (else) is thus abbreviated.

4. I am responsible for all hyphens, and letters and words between square brackets; thus, “with-outen” is in the MS. “with outen;” and “knych[t]ly” is written “knychly.” Whenever a line begins with a capital letter included between two brackets, the original has a blank space left, evidently intended for an illuminated letter. Wherever illuminated letters actually occur in the MS., they are denoted in this edition by large capitals.

5. We find, in the MS., both the long and the twisted _s_ (ſ and s). These have been noted down as they occur, though I do not observe any law for their use. The letter “ß” has been adopted as closely resembling a symbol in the MS., which apparently has the force of double _s_, and is not unlike the “_sz_” used in modern German hand-writing. It may be conveniently denoted by _ss_ when the type “ß” is not to be had, and is sometimes so represented in the “Notes.”

6. The MS. is, of course, not punctuated. The punctuation in the present edition is mostly new; and many passages, which in the former edition were meaningless, have thus been rendered easily intelligible. I am also responsible for the headings of the pages, the abstract at the sides of them, the numbering of the folios in the margin, the notes, and the glossary; which I hope may be found useful. The greatest care has been taken to make the text accurate, the proof-sheets having been compared with the MS. _three times_ throughout.[P3]

[Footnote P3: This refers to the edition printed in 1865. In
executing the present reprint, the proof-sheets have been once
more compared with the MS., and a very few insignificant errors
have been thus detected and rectified.]

II.--DESCRIPTION OF THE POEM.

The poem itself is a loose paraphrase of not quite fourteen folios of the first of the three volumes of the French Romance of Lancelot du Lac, if we refer to it as reprinted at Paris in 1513, in three volumes, thin folio, double-columned.[P4] The English poet has set aside the French Prologue, and written a new one of his own, and has afterwards translated and amplified that portion of the Romance which narrates the invasion of Arthur’s territory by “le roy de oultre les marches, nomme galehault” (in the English _Galiot_), and the defeat of the said king by Arthur and his allies.

[Footnote P4: “As to the Romance of Sir Lancelot, our author
[Gower], among others on the subject, refers to a volume of which
he was the hero; perhaps that of Robert de Borron, altered soon
afterwards by Godefroy de Leigny, under the title of _Le Roman de
la Charrette_, and printed, with additions, at Paris by Antony
Verard, in the year 1494.

For if thou wilt the bokes rede
Of Launcelot and other mo,
Then might thou seen how it was tho
Of armes,” etc. (GOWER: _Confessio Amantis_, Book iv.)

_Quoted from_ Warton’s English Poetry, vol. ii., p. 234, _ed._ 1840. I quote this as bearing somewhat on the subject, though it should be observed that _Le Roman de la Charrette_ is not the same with _Lancelot du Lac_, but only a romance of the same class. Chaucer also refers to Lancelot in his Nonnes Prestes Tale, l. 392; and it is mentioned in the famous lines of Dante (_Inf._ v. 127)--

“Noi leggevamo un giorno per diletto
Di Lancilotto, come amor lo strinse,” &c.]

The Prologue (lines 1-334) tells how the author undertook to write a romance to please his lady-love; and how, after deciding to take as his subject the story of Lancelot as told in the French Romance, yet finding himself unequal to a close translation of the whole of it, he determined to give a paraphrase of a portion of it only. After giving us a brief summary of the earlier part by the simple process of telling us what he will _not_ relate, he proposes to begin the story at the point where Lancelot has been made prisoner by the lady of Melyhalt, and to take as his subject the wars between Arthur and Galiot, and the distinction which Lancelot won in them; and afterwards to tell how Lancelot made peace between these two kings, and was consequently rewarded by Venus, who

“makith hyme his ladice grace to have” (l. 311).

The latter part of the poem, it may be observed, has not come down to us. The author then concludes his Prologue by beseeching to have the support of a very celebrated poet, whose name he will not mention, but will only say that

“Ye fresch enditing of his laiting toung
Out throuch yis world so wid is yroung,” etc.[P5] (l. 328.)

[Footnote P5: He does not necessarily imply that the poet invoked
was still alive; and we might almost suppose Petrarch to be meant,
who was more proud of his Latin poem called “Africa” than of his
odes and sonnets. See Hallam’s Literary History (4 vols.), vol.
i., p. 85. But this is pure conjecture.]

The first Book introduces us to King Arthur at Carlisle.[P6] The king is visited by dreams, which he imagines to forebode misfortune; he therefore convokes all his clerks, and inquires of them the meaning of the dreams, proposing to hang them in the event of their refusal. Thus strongly urged, they tell him that those on whom he most relies will fail him at his need; and when he further inquires if this evil fate can be averted, they answer him very obscurely that it can only be remedied by help of the water-lion, the leech, and the flower; a reply which the king evidently regards as unsatisfactory. Soon after an aged knight, fully armed, enters the palace, with a message from King Galiot, requiring him to give “tribute and rent.” Arthur at once refuses, somewhat to the astonishment of the knight, who is amazed at his hardihood. Next arrives a message from the lady of Melyhalt, informing Arthur of the actual presence of Galiot’s army. We are then momentarily introduced to Lancelot, who is pining miserably in the lady’s custody. Next follows a description of Galiot’s army, at sight of the approach of which King Arthur and his “niece,” Sir Gawain, confer as to the best means of resistance. In the ensuing battle Sir Gawain greatly distinguishes himself, but is at last severely wounded. Sir Lancelot, coming to hear of Sir Gawain’s deeds, craves leave of the lady to be allowed to take part in the next conflict, who grants him his boon on condition that he promise to return to his prison. She then provides for him a red courser, and a complete suit of red armour, in which guise he appears at the second battle, and is the “head and comfort of the field;” the queen and Sir Gawain beholding his exploits from a tower. The result of the battle convinces Galiot that Arthur is not strong enough at present to resist him sufficiently, and that he thus runs the risk of a too easy, and therefore dishonourable, conquest; for which excellent reason he grants Arthur a twelvemonth’s truce, with a promise to return again in increased force at the expiration of that period. Sir Lancelot returns to Melyhalt according to promise, and the lady is well pleased at hearing the reports of his famous deeds, and visits him when asleep, out of curiosity to observe his appearance after the fight.

[Footnote P6: But the French has “Cardueil.” See l. 2153.]

In the Second Book the story makes but little progress, nearly the whole of it being occupied by a long lecture or sermon delivered to Arthur by a “master,” named Amytans, on the duties of a king; the chief one being that a king should give presents to everybody--a duty which is insisted on with laborious tediousness. Lines 1320-2130 are almost entirely occupied with this subject, and will be found to be the driest part of the whole narrative. In the course of his lecture, Amytans explains at great length the obscure prophecy mentioned above, shewing that by the water-lion is meant God the Father, by the leech God the Son, and by the flower the Virgin Mary. Though the outline of a similar lecture exists in the old French text, there would seem to be a special reason for the length to which it is here expanded. Some lines certainly seem to hint at events passing in Scotland at the time when the poem was composed. Thus, “kings may be excused when of tender age” (l. 1658); but when they come to years of discretion should punish those that have wrested the law. Again we find (l. 1920) strong warnings against flatterers, concluding (l. 1940) with the expression,

“Wo to the realme that havith sich o chans!”

Such hints may remind us of the long minorities of James II. and James III.; and, whilst speaking on this subject, I may note a somewhat remarkable coincidence. When King Arthur, as related in Book I., asks the meaning of his dream, he is told that it signifies that “they in whom he most trusts will fail him” (l. 499); and he afterwards laments (l. 1151) how his “men fail him at need.” Now when we read that a story is current of a prophetess having told James III. that he was destined to “fall by the hands of his own kindred,”[P7] and that that monarch was in the habit of consulting _astrologers_[P8] (compare l. 432) as to the dangers that threatened him, it seems quite possible that the poem was really composed about the year 1478; and this supposition is consistent with the fact that the hand-writing of the present MS. copy belongs to the very end of the fifteenth century.

[Footnote P7: Tytler’s History of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1841), vol.
iv., p. 216.]

[Footnote P8: The French text does not say anything about
“astronomy.” We may especially note the following lines, as _not_
being in the French, viz., lines 1473-1496, 1523-1542, 1599-1644,
1658-1680, and the long passage 1752-1998.]

Towards the end of the Second Book, we learn that the twelvemonth’s truce draws near its end, and that Sir Lancelot again obtains permission from the lady to be present in the approaching combat, choosing this time to be arrayed in “armys al of blak” (l. 2426).

In the Third Book Galiot returns to the fight with a host thrice as large as his former one. As before, Gawain distinguishes himself in the first encounter, but is at length so “evil wounded” that he was “the worse thereof evermore” (l. 2706). In the second combat, the black knight utterly eclipses the red knight, and the last thousand (extant) lines of the poem are almost wholly occupied with a description of his wonderful prowess. At the point where the extant portion of the poem ceases, the author would appear to be just warming with his subject, and to be preparing for greater efforts.

In continuance of the outline of the story, I may add that the French text[P9] informs us how, after being several times remounted by Galiot, and finding himself with every fresh horse quite as fresh as he was at the beginning of the battle, the black knight attempted, as evening fell, to make his way back to Melyhalt secretly. Galiot, however, having determined not to lose sight of him, follows and confronts him, and earnestly requests his company to supper, and that he will lodge in his tent that night. After a little hesitation, Lancelot accepts the invitation, and Galiot entertains him with the utmost respect and flattery, providing for him a most excellent supper and a bed larger than any of the rest. Lancelot, though naturally somewhat wearied, passes a rather restless night, and talks a good deal in his sleep. Next day Galiot prays him to stay longer, and he consents on condition that a boon may be granted him, which is immediately acceded to without further question. He then requests Galiot to submit himself to Arthur, and to confess himself vanquished, a demand which so amazes that chieftain that he at first refuses, yet succeeds in persuading Lancelot to remain with him a little longer. The day after, preparations are made for another battle, on which occasion Lancelot wears Galiot’s armour, and is at first mistaken for him, till Sir Gawain’s acute vision detects that the armour really encases the black knight. As Lancelot now fights on Galiot’s side, it may easily be imagined how utter and complete is the defeat of Arthur’s army, which was before victorious owing to his aid only; and we are told that Arthur is ready to kill himself out of pure grief and chagrin, whilst Sir Gawain swoons so repeatedly, for the same reason, as to cause the most serious fears to be entertained for his life. At this sorrowful juncture Lancelot again claims his boon of Galiot, who, in the very moment of victory, determines at last to grant it, and most humbly sues for mercy at the hands of Arthur, to that king’s most intense astonishment. By this very unexpected turn of affairs, the scene of dolour is changed to one of unalloyed joy, and peace is immediately agreed upon, to the satisfaction of all but some true-bred warriors, who preferred a battle to a peace under all circumstances. Not long after, Galiot discovers Lancelot with eyes red and swollen with much weeping, and endeavours to ascertain the reason of his grief, but with small success. After endeavouring to comfort Lancelot as much as possible, Galiot goes to visit King Arthur, and a rather long conference takes place between them as they stand at Sir Gawain’s bedside, the queen being also present. In the course of it, Galiot asks Arthur what price he would pay to have the black knight’s perpetual friendship; to which Arthur replies, he would gladly share with him half of everything that he possessed, saving only Queen Guinevere. The question is then put to Gawain, who replies that, if only his health might be restored, he would wish to be the most beautiful woman in the world, so as to be always beloved by the knight. Next it is put to Guinevere, who remarks that Sir Gawain has anticipated all that a lady could possibly wish, an answer which is received with much laughter. Lastly, Arthur puts the question to Galiot himself, who declares that he would willingly, for the black knight’s sake, suffer that all his honour should be turned into shame, whereat Sir Gawain allows himself to be outbidden. The queen then obtains a brief private conference with Galiot, and prays him to obtain for her an interview with the black knight, who promises to do what he can to that end. He accordingly sounds the black knight upon the subject, and, finding him entirely of the same mind, does all he can to promote their acquaintance, and is at last only too successful; and at this point we may suppose the Scottish Romance to have stopped, if indeed it was ever completed. For some account of the Romance of Lancelot, I may refer the reader to Professor Morley’s English Writers, vol. i., pp. 568-570, and 573; to “Les Romans de la Table Ronde,” par M. Paulin Paris; and to the Prefaces to the “Seynt Graal,” edited by Mr Furnivall for the Roxburghe Club, 1861, and “La Queste del Saint Graal,” also edited by the same for the same club in 1864. In the last-named volume short specimens are given from thirteen MSS. at Paris, ten of which contain the Romance of Lancelot. There are also manuscript copies of it in the British Museum, viz., MSS. Harl. 6341 and 6342, Lansdowne 757, and MS. Addit. 10293.

[Footnote P9: See Appendix.]

III.--THE DIALECT OF THE POEM.

In coming to discuss the dialect, we find everywhere traces of considerable confusion; but it is not at all easy to assign a satisfactory reason for this.[P10] Certain errors of transcription soon shew that the scribe had before his eyes an older copy, which he mis-read. Thus, in l. 433, we find “set,” where the older copy must have had “fet,” and which he must have mis-read as “ſet;” and again, in lines 2865, 2883, he has, by a similar confusion between “f” and “ſ,” written “firſt” instead of “fift.” It is most probable that the older copy was written in the Lowland Scottish dialect (the whole tone of the poem going to prove this), as shewn by the use of _ch_ for _gh_, as in _bricht_ for _bright_, (unless this be wholly due to the scribe); by the occurrence of plurals in _-is_, of verbal preterites and passive participles in _-it_, and of words peculiarly Scottish, such as _syne_ (afterwards), _anerly_ (only), _laif_ (remainder), _oft-syss_ (oft-times), etc. Moreover, the Northern _r_ is clearly indicated by the occurrence of such dissyllables as _gar-t_, 2777, _lar-g_, 2845, _fir-st_, 2958, 3075; with which compare the significant spellings _harrmful_, 1945, and _furrde_, 2583. But, on the other hand, it would appear as if either the author or the copyist had no great regard for pure dialect, and continually introduces Southern and Midland forms, mixing them together in an indiscriminate and very unusual manner. We find, for example, in line 1765,

“Be{ith} larg and iff{is} frely of thi thing,”

the Scottish form _iffis_ (give) and the Southern _beith_ in close conjunction; and we find no less than six or seven forms of the plural of the past tense of the verb “to be;” as, for example, _war_ (3136), _veir_ (818), _ware_ (825), _waren_ (3301), _veryng_ (2971), _waryng_ (443), etc. If we could suppose that the scribe was not himself a Scotchman, we might in some measure account for such a result; but the supposition is altogether untenable, as the peculiar character of the handwriting (resembling that found, not in English, but in _French_ MSS.) decides it to be certainly Scottish; as is also evident from the occurrence, in the same hand-writing, of a Scotticised version of Chaucer’s “Flee from the press.”

[Footnote P10: For many valuable remarks upon the dialect of the
poem I am indebted to Mr R. Morris.]

The best that can be done is to collect a few instances of peculiarities.

1. The broad Northumbrian forms _a_, _ane_, _baith_, _fra_, _ga_, _haill_, _hame_, _knaw_, _law_, _sa_, _wat_, although occasionally retained, are also at times changed into _o_, _one_, _boith_, _fro_, _go_, _holl_, _hom_, _know_, _low_, _so_, and _wot_. Thus, at the end of l. 3246, we find _haill_, which could not have been altered without destroying the rime; but in l. 3078, we find it changed, in the middle of the line, into _holl_. In l. 3406, we find _sa_, but only three lines further on we find _so_ twice.

So, too, we not only find _tane_ (taken), _gais_ (goes), but also the forms _tone_ and _goß_. See lines 1071, 1073.

2. The true plural form of the verb is shewn by lines 203, 204,

“Of quhois fame and worschipful dedis
Clerkis into diuerß bukis _redis_,”

where alteration would have ruined the rime utterly; and the same termination (_-is_) is correctly used in the imperative mood, as,

----“ſo _giffis_ ws delay” (l. 463);

“And of thi wordis _beis_ trew and stable” (l. 1671);

but the termination _-ith_ is continually finding its way into the poem, even as early as in the fourth line,

“_Uprisith_ arly in his fyre chare;”

and in the imperative mood also, as,

“_Remembrith_ now it stondith one the poynt” (l. 797).

The most singular point of all, however, is this--that, not content with changing _-is_ into _-ith_ in the 3rd person singular, the scribe has done the same even in the 2nd person, thus producing words which belong to no pure example of any distinct dialect. Observe the following lines:--

“O woful wrech, that _levis_ in to were!
To schew the thus the god of loue me sent,
That of thi seruice no thing is content,
For in his court yhoue [= thou] _lewith_ in disspar,
And vilfully _sustenis_ al thi care,
And _schapith_ no thinge of thine awn remede,
Bot _clepith_ ay and _cryith_ apone dede,” etc. (ll. 84-90).

Here _levis_ is altered into _lewith_, not only unnecessarily, but quite wrongly. For similar mistakes, see ll. 1019, 1369, 1384, 2203. For examples of correct usage, see ll. 1024, 1337, 1796, 2200, 2201.

3. But the terminations which are used in the most confused manner of all are _-en_, _-yne_, and _-ing_ or _-yng_. Thus we find the non-Scottish infinitives, _telen_ (494), _makine_ (191); the constant substitution of _-ing_ for _-and_ in the present participle;[P11] a confusion between the past participial ending _-ine_ (more correctly _-yn_), and the present ending _-and_, thus producing such forms as _thinkine_ (34), and _besichyne_ (418); and also a confusion between _-ing_ and the past participial ending _-en_, as _fundyng_ for _funden_ (465), _fallyng_ for _fallen_ (1217, 1322, 3267), _swellyng_ for _swollen_ (1222), and _halding_ for _halden_ (2259). We even find _-ing_ in the infinitive mood, as in _awysing_ (424), _viting_ (to know, 410), _smyting_ (1326), _warnnyng_ (1035), _passing_ (2148), _ſchewing_ (2736), etc.; and, lastly, it occurs in the plural of the indicative present, instead of the Midland _-en_; as in _passing_ (1166), _biding_ (2670), and _levyng_ (3304).[P12]

[Footnote P11: We find the true forms occasionally, as _obeisand_
(641), _plesand_ (1731), _thinkand_ (2173), _prekand_ (3089), and
_fechtand_ (3127). Compare the form _seruand_ (122).]

[Footnote P12: “The Scottish pronunciation of _-ing_ was already,
as it still is, _-een_; and the writer, knowing that the correct
spelling of _dwellin_, for example, was _dwelling_, fancied also
that _fallen_, _halden_ (Sc. _fallyn_, _haldyn_) were _fallyng_,
_haldyng_. Lyndesay and Gawain Douglas often do the same. Compare
_gardinge_ (l. 50), _laiting_ (l. 327).” --J. A. H. Murray.]

It may safely be concluded, however, that the frequent occurrence of non-Scottish infinitives must not be attributed to the copyist, since they are probably due rather to the author; for in such a line as

“Of his desir to viting the sentens” (l. 410),

the termination _-ing_ is required to complete the rhythm of the line.

In the same way we must account for the presence of the prefix _i-_, as in the line

“Quharwith that al the gardinge was I-clede” (l. 50).

This prefix never occurs in vernacular Scottish; but we may readily suppose that this and other numerous Southern forms of words are due (as in Gawain Douglas and Lyndesay) to the author’s familiarity with Chaucer’s poems, as evinced by the similarity of the rhythm to Chaucer’s, and by the close resemblance of several passages. Compare, for instance, the first seventy lines of the Prologue with the opening passages of “The Flower and the Leaf,” and “The Complaint of the Black Knight;” and see notes to ll. 432, 1608. Indeed, this seems to be the only satisfactory way of accounting for the various peculiarities with which the poem abounds.

Mr J. A. H. Murray, in his remarks printed in the preface to Mr Lumby’s edition of “Early Scottish Verse,” comes to a similar conclusion, and I here quote his words for the reader’s convenience and information. “There is no reason, however, to suspect the scribe of _wilfully_ altering his original; indeed, the reverse appears manifest, from the fact that the ‘Craft of Deyng’ has not been assimilated in orthography to ‘Ratis Raving,’ but distinctly retains its more archaic character; while in ‘Sir Lancelot,’ edited by Mr Skeat for the Early English Text Society, from the handwriting of the same scribe, we have a language in its continual Anglicisms quite distinct from that of the pieces contained in this volume, of which the Scotch is as pure and unmixed as that of the contemporary Acts of Parliament. With regard to the remarkable transformation which the dialect has undergone in Sir Lancelot, there seems reason, therefore, to suppose that it was not due to the copyist of the present MS., but to a previous writer, if not to the author himself, who perhaps affected _southernism_, as was done a century later by Lyndesay and Knox, and other adherents of the English party in the Reformation movement. The Southern forms are certainly often shown by the rhyme to be original, and such a form as _tone_ for _tane_ = taken, is more likely to have been that of a Northerner trying to write Southern, than of a Southern scribe, who knew that no such word existed in his dialect. The same may be said of the _th_ in the second person singular. A Scotch writer, who observed that Chaucer said _he liveth_, where he himself said _he lyves_, might be excused for supposing that he would also have said _thou liveth_ for the Northern _thow lyves_; but we can hardly fancy a Southern copyist making the blunder.”

4. We find not only the Northumbrian forms _sall_ and _suld_, but also _shall_, _shalt_, and _shuld_.

5. As regards pronouns, we find the Scottish _scho_ (she) in l. 1169; but the usual form is _sche_. We find, too, not only the broad forms _thai_, _thair_, _thaim_, but also _thei_ (sometimes _the_), _ther_, and _them_. As examples of forms of the relative pronoun, we may quote _who_, _quho_, _whois_, _quhois_ (whose), _quhom_, _qwhome_ (whom), _quhat_, _qwhat_ (what), and _whilk_, _quhilk_, _quhich_, _quich_, _wich_ (which). _Wich_ is used instead of _who_ (l. 387), and we also find _the wich_, or _the wich that_, similarly employed. The nominative _who_ does not perhaps occur as a _simple_ relative, but has the force of _whoso_, or _he who_, as _e.g._, in l. 1102; or else it is used interrogatively, as in l. 1172.

6. Many other peculiarities occur, which it were tedious to discuss fully. It may suffice, perhaps, to note briefly these following. We find both the soft sound _ch_, as in _wich_, _sich_, and the hard sound _k_, as in _whilk_, _reke_ (reach), _streke_ (stretch), etc.; which are the true Northern forms.

_Mo_ is used as well as _more_.

_Tho_ occurs for _then_ in l. 3184; and for _the_ in l. 247.

_At_ occurs as well as _that_; _atte_ as well as _at the_, 627, 1055.

The short forms _ma_ (make), _ta_ (take), _sent_ (sendeth), _stant_ (standeth), are sometimes found; the two former being Northumbrian.

_Has_ is used twice as a _plural_ verb (ll. 481, 496).[P13]

[Footnote P13: “The plural in Scottish always ends in _-s_ after a
noun or when the verb is separated from its pronoun; we still say
_the men hes_, _the bairns sings_, _them ’at cums_, not _have_,
_sing_, _come_. Notice the frequent use of _th_ for _t_, as in
l. 497, _Presumyth_ = _presumit_, presumed, it being presumed.”
--J. A. H. Murray. [Or, _presumyth_ may be the pl. imperative, as
in _Remembrith_ (l. 797), already noticed. --ED.] ]

_Ȝha_ (yes) occurs in l. 2843; but we also meet with _ȝhis_, or _yis_; with reference to which Mr Morris writes:-- “The latter term was not much in favour with the people of the North. Even now _yes_ sounds offensive to a Lancashire man. ‘Hoo cou’d naw opp’n hur meawth t’ sey _eigh_ (yea) or _now_ (no); boh simpurt on sed _iss_; th’ dickons iss hur on him too. --_Tim Bobbin._’” In fact, the distinction between _ȝha_ and _ȝhis_, which I have pointed out in _William of Palerne_ (Glossary, s.v. _ȝis_), viz., that _ȝha_ merely assents, whilst _ȝhis_ shews that the speaker has an opinion of his own, is in this poem observed. Thus, in l. 2843, _ȝha_ = “yes, I admit that I do;” but in l. 514, _yis_ = “yes, but you had better do so;” in l. 1397, _ȝhis_ = “yes, indeed I will;” and in l. 3406, _ȝis_ = “yes, but I cannot accept your answer.”[P14] The true distinction between _thou_ and _ye_ (_William of Palerne_, Pref. p. xli) is also generally observed. Thus the Green Bird, in the Prologue, considers the poet to be a fool, and calls him _thou_; but the clerks, in addressing Arthur (l. 498) politely say _ye_. And again, Amytans, when rebuking Arthur, frequently calls him _thou_, without any ceremony. Cf. ll. 659, 908, 921, 2839, &c.

[Footnote P14: “This _ȝis_ is the common form in the Scottish
writers, though _ay_ is largely the modern vernacular.” --J. A. H.
Murray.]

As regards the vocabulary, we find that some Northumbrian terms have been employed, but others thrown aside. Thus, while we find the Northumbrian words _thir_ (these), _traist_ (trust), _newis_ (neives, fists), _radour_ (fear), etc., we do not, on the other hand, meet with the usual Scottish word _mirk_, but observe it to be supplanted by _dirk_ (l. 2471). So, again, _eke_ is used in the sense of _also_, instead of being a verb, as more usual in Northern works. We may note, too, the occurrence of _frome_ as well as _fra_, and the Scottish form _thyne-furth_ (thenceforth) in l. 2196.

The spelling is very various. We find even four forms of one word, as _cusynace_, _cusynece_, _cusynes_, _cwsynes_; and, as examples of eccentric spelling, may be quoted _qsquyaris_ (squires, l. 3204), whilst in l. 3221 we find _sqwar_.

Both in the marginal abstract and in the notes I have chiefly aimed at removing minor difficulties by explaining sentences of which the construction is peculiar, and words which are disguised by the spelling. For the explanation of more uncommon words, recourse should be had to the Glossarial Index.

[Transcriber’s Note:

Most of the French text was printed as a single continuous block, except where decorative initials mark new paragraphs. It has been broken up to accommodate the sidenotes.]

APPENDIX.

EXTRACTS FROM THE FRENCH ROMANCE OF “LANCELOT DU LAC.”

As it seems impossible to do justice to the story of Lancelot without giving due attention to the famous French Romance, and since a portion of the French text is really necessary to complete even that fragment of it which the Scottish author proposed to write, the following extracts have been made with the view of shewing (1) the general outline of the earlier part of the story, (2) the method in which the Scottish author has expanded or altered his original, and (3) the completion of the story of the wars between Arthur and Galiot.[A1]

[Footnote A1: The extracts are from the Paris edition of 1513,
3 vols. folio, a copy of which is in the King’s Library in the
British Museum. There are also two other editions in the Museum,
one in the Grenville Library, 3 vols. Paris, 1494, folio; the
other in one folio volume, Paris, 1520.]

I. Headings of the chapters of the French Romance, from its commencement to the end of the wars with Galiot.

[The commas are inserted by the present editor, and the expansions marked by italics.]

¶ Cy commence la table du premier volume de la table ro{n}de
lancelot du lac.

[Sidenote: Claudas, king of Scotland, deprives king Ban and king Boort of their lands.]

¶ Comment apres la mort de vterpandragon roy du royaulme de
logres, & apres la mort aramon, roy de la petite bretaigne, le roy
claudas de la terre Descosse mena guerre contre le roy ban de benoic
et le roy boort de gauues ta{n}t quil les desherita[A2] de leurs
terres. Fueillet. i.

[Footnote A2: See ll. 1447-1449.]

[Sidenote: Claudas besieges Ban in the Castle of Trible.]

¶ Comment le roy claudas assiegea le chasteau de trible
auquel estoit le roy ban de benoic, et comment ilz parlementerent
ensemble. f. i.

[Sidenote: King Ban, his wife, and his son Lancelot repair to the court of Arthur.]

¶ Comment le roy ban de benoic, accompaigne de sa femme et
de son filz lancelot, auecq{ue}s vng seul escuyer, se partirent du
chasteau de trible pour aller querir secours deuers le roy Artus a
la grant bretaigne. Fueillet ii.

[Sidenote: The Castle of Trible is treacherously given up to Claudas.]

¶ Comment apres ce que le roy ban fut party de son chasteau
de trible, le seneschal a qui il auoit baille la garde trahit ledit
chasteau, et le liura es mains du roy claudas. Fueillet. ii.

[Sidenote: King Ban dies of grief, and Lancelot is taken away by the lady of the lake.]

¶ Comment le roy ban mourut de dueil quant il veit son
chasteau ardoir et brouyr. Et comment la dame du lac emporta son
filz lancelot.[A3] Fueillet. iiii.

[Footnote A3: Lines 215, 220.]

¶ Comme{n}t la royne helaine, apres que le roy fut mort et
elle eut perdu son filz, se rendit nonnain en labbaye du monstier
royal. Fueillet. v.

[Sidenote: The two sisters, widows of kings Ban and Boort, retreat to a monastery.]

¶ Comment le roy de gauues mourut | & co{m}ment la Royne sa
femme, pour paour de claudas, sen partit de son chasteau pour aller
au monstier royal, ou sa seur estait rendue, et comment ses enfans
Lyonnel et Boort luy furent ostez. Fueillet vi.

¶ Comment la royne de Gauues, apres que son seigneur fut
mort et que elle eut perdu ses deux enfans, se vint rendre au
monastere ou estoit sa seur la royne de benoic. Fueillet vi.

[Sidenote: Merlin’s love for the lady of the lake.]

¶ Comment merlin fut engendre du dyable: Et comment il fut
amoureux de la dame du lac. Fueillet vii.

[Sidenote: Sir Farien secretly nourishes the two sons of king Boort, and is made seneschal to king Claudas.]

¶ Comme{n}t le cheualier farien, qui auoit tollu a la royne
de Gauues ses deux enfans, les emporta en sa maison | et les feist
nourrir vne espace de temps. Et comment le roy claudas fut amoureux
de la femme du dict Farien | et pource le fist son seneschal.
Fueillet viii.

[Sidenote: Claudas accuses Sir Farien of treason.]

¶ Comment le roy claudas fist appeller son cheualier farien
de trahison par ladmonnesteme{n}t de sa femme, disant quil gardoit
les deux enfans du roy boort de gauues. Fueillet. viii.

[Sidenote: Claudas, in disguise, visits Arthur’s court.]

¶ comment le roy claudas en maniere de cheualier estrange, se partit
du royaulme de gauues pour aller en la grant bretaigne a la court du
roy artus pour veoir sa puissa{n}ce & son gouuernement.
Fueillet x.

[Sidenote: The lady of the lake informs Lancelot that he is a king’s son.]

¶ Comment la dame du lac bailla a lancelot vng maistre pour
linstruyre comme il appartenoit a filz de roy. Fueillet xii.

¶ Comme{n}t la royne helaine alloit faire chascun io{u}r son
dueil au lieu ou son seigneur mourut | et de la alloit au lac ou
elle perdit son filz. Fueillet xv.

¶ Comment le bon Religieux qui auoit dit nouuelles a la
royne helaine de son filz lancelot, print conge de elle, et sen vint
au roy artus en la grant bretaigne. Fueillet xvi.

[Sidenote: The lady of the lake seeks to deliver the sons of king Boort.]

¶ Comment la dame du lac enuoya sa damoyselle a la court du
roy claudas, pour delyurer les deux enfans au roy boort que claudas
tenoit en prison. Fueillet xvii.

¶ Comment farien, seneschal du roy claudas par le
comma{n}dement de son seigneur, alla querir en prison les deux filz
au roy de Gauues. Fueillet xviii.

[Sidenote: Lyonnel and Boort wound king Claudas, and slay his son Dorin.]

¶ Comment les deux enfans au roy de gauues blecerent le roy
claudas, & occire{n}t dorin son filz | et comment la damoyselle du
lac les emmena en semblance de deux leuriers. fueil. xix.

¶ De la grant ioye et du grant honneur que la dame du lac
fist aux deux enfans quant elle les veit en sa maison.
Fueillet xx.

[Sidenote: Claudas bewails his son’s death.]

¶ Comment le roy claudas mena tres grant dueil pour la mort
de dorin son filz que boort auoit occis. Fueillet xx.

¶ Comment farien et le peuple de la cyte de gauues
sesmeure{n}t contre le roy claudas a cause que il vouloit faire
mourir les deux filz au roy boort de gauues. Fueillet. xxi.

[Sidenote: Farien saves Claudas’ life.]

¶ Comment le roy claudas se partit de gauues | et comment
ceulx dudit lieu le vouloient occire, se neust este farien le bo{n}
cheualier. f. xxiii.

¶ Comment le roy claudas se deffendit vaillamment contre
ceulx de Gauues qui le vouloyent occire. Fueillet. xxv.

¶ Comment lyonnel et boort perdirent le boire et le manger
pource quilz ne scauoyent nouuelles de leur maistres | lesquelz
estoyent demourez auec le roy claudas | & comment la dame du lac
enuoya vne sie{n}ne damoyselle a gauues pour les amener.
Fueillet. xxvii.

[Sidenote: Leonce and Lambegues go to seek Lyonnel and Boort.]

¶ Comment, par le conseil des baro{n}s de gauues: leonce &
lambegues sen allerent auecques la damoyselle pour veoir leurs
seigneurs lyonnel et boort. Fueillet xxviii.

¶ Comment la dame du lac sen retourna apres ce quelle eut
monstre a leonce et a lambegues les enfa{n}s du roy de gauues leurs
seign{eu}rs, et comment lesditz cheualiers sen retournere{n}t a
gauues. Fueillet xxx.

[Sidenote: Claudas meditates revenge.]

¶ Comment le roy claudas retourna a gauues, po{u}r soy
venger de la honte quon luy auoit faicte, et pour la mort de son
filz. Fueil. xxxi.

¶ Comment lappointement fut fait entre le roy claudas et les
barons, par le moyen de farien et lambegues son nepueu.
fueillet. xxxiii.

[Sidenote: Death of Farien.]

¶ Comme{n}t farien | sa femme, et son nepueu lambegues sen
partirent pour aller veoir lyonnel et boort, qui estoyent au lac | &
comment farien mourut. Fueillet xxxv.

[Sidenote: The widow of king Boort sees her children and Lancelot in a vision, and dies.]

¶ Comment les deux roynes menerent saincte vie au monstier
royal | et comment celle de gauues veit ces deux enfans & lancelot
en aduision | et comment elle trespassa de ce siecle.
Fueillet. xxxv.

[Sidenote: Arthur holds a tournament, and Banin, son of king Ban, is the victor.]

¶ Comment le roy artus assembla le iour de pasques tous ses
barons, & tint grant court a karahes, et comment banin le filleul au
Roy ban emporta le pris du behourdys celluy iour.
Fueillet. xxxvi.

[Sidenote: The lady of the lake sends Lancelot to Arthur to be knighted, and provides for him white armour.]

¶ Comment la dame du lac se pourpensa de mener lancelot au
roy artus pour le faire cheualier,[A4] et elle luy bailla armes
blanches, et partit du lac a tout quarante cheualliers pour le
conuoyer. Fueillet xxxvii.

[Footnote A4: Line 223.]

[Sidenote: Of the wounded knight who came to Arthur’s court.]

¶ Comment vng cheuallier naure, lequel auoit vne espee
fichee en la teste et deux tronco{n}s de lance parmy le corps,[A5]
vint a la court du roy artus | et comment la dame du lac le mena
deuant le roy artus, et luy prya quil le fist cheualier.
Fueillet xxxix.

[Footnote A5: Lines 237-245.]

[Sidenote: Lancelot is knighted.]

¶ Comment messire yuain, a qui le roy Artus auoit
recomma{n}de lancelot, alla faire sa requeste audit roy artus, que
le lendemain il fist ledit lancelot cheualier, et comment ledit
lancelot defferra le cheualier naure.[A6] Fueillet. xli.

[Footnote A6: Lines 249-252.]

[Sidenote: How the white knight defended the lady of Nohalt,]

¶ Comment la dame de noehault[A7] enuoya deuers le roy
artus, luy supplier q{u}il luy enuoyast secours contre le Roy de
norhombellande qui luy menoit guerre. Et comment Lancelot requist au
roy artus quil luy donnast congie dy aller | & il luy octroya.
Fueillet xlii.

[Footnote A7: Line 255.]

[Sidenote: and won the battle for her.]

¶ Co{m}ment le nouueau cheualier aux armes blanches vainquit
la bataille pour la dame de noehault. Fueillet xliii.

¶ Comment lancelot apres ce quil se fut party de la dame de
noehault, se co{m}batit auec vng cheualier qui lauoit mouille.
Fueillet xlv.

[Sidenote: How Lancelot conquered the “Sorrowful Castle.”]

¶ Comment lancelot conquist vaillamme{n}t par sa force et
proesse le chasteau de la douloureuse garde q{ue} nul aultre ne
pouoit conquerre.[A8] Fueillet xlv.

[Footnote A8: Lines 257-259.]

[Sidenote: How Arthur hears of it, and sends Gawain to see if it is true.]

¶ Comment les nouuelles vindrent au roy artus que la
douloureuse garde estoit conquise par la cheualier aux armes
blanches | Et le roy y enuoya messire gauuain pour en scauoir la
verite. Fueillet xlviii.

[Sidenote: Gawain is imprisoned, and supposed to be dead.]

¶ Comment messire Gauuain fut mys en prison | et comment le
roy et la royne entrerent en la premiere porte de la | et la veirent
des tu{m}bes ou il y auoit escript que monseigneur gauuain estoit
mort, et plusieures aultres cheualiers. Fueillet. xlix.

[Sidenote: Lancelot hears of Gawain’s imprisonment,]

¶ Comment vne damoyselle de lhostel de la dame du lac feist
assauoir au cheuallier blanc que monseigneur gauuain & ses
compaigno{n}s estoyent emprisonnez par celluy qui auoit este
seigneur de la douloureuse garde. Fueillet l.

[Sidenote: and delivers him and his companions.]

¶ Comme{n}t le blanc cheualier se combatit encontre celluy
qui auoit este seigneur de la douloureuse garde, q{u}i tenoit en
prison messire gauuain et ses compaignons.[A9] Fueillet. l.

[Footnote A9: Lines 263, -4.]

¶ Comment le cheuallier blanc emmena le cheualier conquis en
vng hermitaige. et comment ledit cheualier conquis luy rendit audit
hermitage gauuain & ses compaignons. f. lii.

[Sidenote: Gawain returns to Arthur and his Queen at Douloureuse Garde.]

¶ Comment messire gauuain et ses compaignons sen vindre{n}t
par deuers le roy artus qui estoit a la douloureuse garde. Et
comment le roy et la royne furent ioyeulx quant ilz les virent.
Fueillet. liii.

[Sidenote: Lancelot hears of the war to come between Arthur and Galiot.]

¶ Comment le cheuallier blanc retourna a labbaye ou il auoit
laisse ses escuyers | et comment il sceut lassemblee qui deuoit
estre entre le roy artus et le roy doultre les marches, & co{m}ment
il conquist le cheualier qui disoit mieulx aymer le cheualier qui
auoit naure que celluy qui lauoit este.[A10] Fueillet. liiii.

[Footnote A10: See ll. 244, -5.]

[Sidenote: Gawain goes to seek the white knight,]

¶ Comment messire gauuain se mist en queste pour trouuer le
blanc cheuallier.[A11] Et comment la meslee dentre les gens au roy
des cent cheualiers et les gens de la dame de noehault fut appaisee.
Fueillet lv.

[Footnote A11: Line 267.]

[Sidenote: who is wounded in the battle against Galiot by the king-of-a-hundred-knights.]

¶ Comment le blanc cheualier vainquit lassemble dentre les
deux roys | et comme{n}t il fut naure du roy des cent cheualiers.
Fueillet. lvi.

[Sidenote: Arthur and Queen Genure return home.]

¶ Comme{n}t apres que le cheualier qui auoit gangne le
tournoyement dentre le roy doultre les marches sen fut alle, le roy
artus & la royne genieure se partirent pour aller en leurs pays.
Fueillet lvii.

¶ Comment messire gauuain se combatit a brehain-sans-pitie,
et le rua par terre. et co{m}ment apres ilz sen allerent a la
douloureuse garde: & comment les deux pucelles que messire Gauuain
menoit luy furent tollues. Fueillet. lviii.

[Sidenote: Lancelot ends the adventures of the “Sorrowful Castle.”]

¶ Comment lancelot print congie de son mire | et comment il
mist a fin les aduentures de la douloureuse garde.
Fueillet lx.

[Sidenote: Lancelot is again victorious in the combat between Arthur and Galiot.]

¶ Comment messire gauuain recouura les deux pucelles qui luy
auoyent este tollues, Et comment lancelot vainquit la seconde
assemblee dentre le roy artus & le roy doultre les marches.
Fueillet lxi.

[Sidenote: Gawain returns to Arthur’s court.]

¶ Comment messire gauuain retourna a la court du roy artus
apres la seconde assemblee dentre le roy artus & le roy doultre les
marches, et comment lancelot vainquit le cheualier qui gardoit le
gue. Fueillet lxiii.

[_Here begins the Scotch Translation._]

[Sidenote: Arthur’s evil dreams.]

¶ Comment le roy Artus songea plusieurs songes | et apres
manda tous les saiges clercs de son royaulme pour en scauoir la
signifiance.[A12] Fueillet lxiiii.

[Footnote A12: Lines 363-527.]

[Sidenote: Galiot defies Arthur.]

¶ Comment le roy doultre les marches, nomme gallehault,
enuoya deffier le roy artus[A13] | et comment Lancelot occist deux
geans empres kamalot.[A14] Fueillet lxv.

[Footnote A13: Lines 540-592.]
[Footnote A14: Line 280.]

[Sidenote: Lancelot is assailed by forty knights, and imprisoned by the lady of Melyhalt.]

¶ Comment lancelot occist vng cheualier q{u}i disoit moins
aymer le cheualier naure que celluy qui lauoit naure.[A15] | et
comment il fut assailly de .xl. cheualliers, et mys en prison de la
dame de mallehault.[A16] Fueillet lxviii.

[Footnote A15: Lines 233-252.]
[Footnote A16: Lines 281-292.]

[Sidenote: Lancelot, released from prison, is again victorious against Galiot.]