Chapter I: Preface

The Studies contained in the following pages were, in the first instance, undertaken some four or five years ago. From time to time the exigencies of other literary work have compelled me to lay them aside, but the subject has never been lost sight of, and, not infrequently, studies in appearance wholly unconnected with the _Lancelot_ legend have thrown an unexpected and welcome light on certain points of the story. Undertaken, in the first instance, with an absolutely open mind (even after I had been working at it for two or three years I should have been sorely at a loss if asked to state a theory of the origin of the story), it was only by slow degrees that the real bearing of the evidence became clear, and I felt that I had at last grasped a guiding thread through the perplexing maze. The results, which perhaps to some readers may appear startlingly subversive of opinions formally expressed by certain distinguished scholars, were wholly unforeseen. They are the outcome of genuine study of original texts; whether, in the long-run they be, or be not generally accepted, I would at least plead that they be judged _on the evidence of those texts_.

In certain cases I have little doubt as to the verdict. So far as the evidence concerning the sources of Malory, and the differing versions of the prose _Lancelot_, is concerned, the facts, now brought forward for the first time, are beyond dispute. They may, I hope they will, be hereafter added to, and confirmed. As they stand they encourage us to hope that further study of the material already available may yield welcome, and perhaps unsuspected results.

We are, so far, only on the threshold of a satisfactory and scientific criticism of the Arthurian cycle, and I doubt whether all who are engaged in this study recognise sufficiently either the extent and complexity of the questions involved, or the absolute futility of, at this early stage, enunciating dogmatic decisions on any of the various points at issue. Is there any one living scholar who is perfectly aware of _all_ the evidence at our disposal for any of the great stories of the cycle? If there be, he will know, better than any other, that till critical editions place us in a position to determine the characteristic readings of the MSS. representing not one alone, but _all_ those stories, their inter-relation, their points of contact with, and variance from each other, the very best work that can be done will be liable to bear the impress of a temporary character--it will not, it cannot be, final.

Elsewhere, I have urged that this fact be recognised and acted upon, and I cannot but hope that the evidence collected in these studies may help to convince others of the real necessity for a determined effort to edit and render accessible the principal Arthurian texts, and the certain and permanent profit likely to result from such a work.

BOURNEMOUTH, _February 1901_.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 1-4

Lancelot not a character of primitive Arthurian tradition 4

First recorded mention by Chrétien de Troyes and sudden growth in popularity 5-7

CHAPTER II

THE 'LANZELET' OF ULRICH VON ZATZIKHOVEN

Lancelot--Theories as to origin of name--M. de la Villemarqué-- Professor Rhys--M. Gaston Paris--Professor Zimmer--Professor Foerster--Proposed Celtic derivation unsatisfactory 8-10

Summary of poem 11-17

Discussion of poem--Contradictory character of contents; not necessarily proof of late origin 18-21

Process of evolution sketched 23-25

Connection between _Lanzelet_ and _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach--Not merely a superficial borrowing of names-- Necessity for critical edition of the _Lanzelet_, and careful comparison of the two poems 25-29

CHAPTER III

LANCELOT ET LE CERF AU PIED BLANC

Summary of poem 30-32

_Lai de Tyolet_--Older variant, but real nature of story even then obscured 32-34

'False Claimant' _motif_ foreign to original _Lai_ 34-35

Influence of _Tristan_ noticeable in the _Morien_ variant-- Possible connection with _Lai_ 35-38

Reasons for omission of adventure in later versions 38-39

CHAPTER IV

LE CHEVALIER DE LA CHARRETTE

Summary of poem 40-42

Structure of poem confused and unsatisfactory--Probable reasons for this 42-46

Versions of Guinevere's imprisonment--Comparison with Siegfried-Brynhild story--Legend primitive and in earliest form unlocalised--Localisation points to an insular redaction 46-49

Relation between Chrétien's poem and other versions--Malory's version cannot be proved to be drawn from prose _Lancelot_-- _Iwein_ certainly independent of _Charrette_--_Parzival_ doubtful--Two latter possibly represent earlier version, imperfectly known by Chrétien 49-53