Chapter I (2)

Mr. Hartland, to whom I referred the point, remarks that the unvarying tendency in certain families of folk-tales, notably those of Oriental origin, is to crystallise a small but indefinite number into _three_. Now Mr. Campbell, as we have seen, detects a likeness between the flying horses of the _Sea Maiden_ tales, and the horses of the Veda, and Mr. Joseph Jacobs, in a note appended to another tale,[52] quotes a further remark of the same writer, to the effect that the many-coloured horses of Indian mythology may account for all the magical horses of folk-tales. So if our tale, as a whole, did not come from the east, it seems possible that this particular incident may have done so.[53]

Yet in so far as the tournament form is concerned, it is, of course, _possible_ that certain literary versions of the story might have been affected by the ordinary customs of the day. Anyway there seems to be a fairly close correspondence here between fact and fancy. Niedner, in his work on _Das Deutsche Turnier_,[54] remarks that the tourney proper was generally held on a Monday; the knights assembled on the previous Saturday; Sunday morning was spent in mustering those present and arranging the opposing factions; while the afternoon was devoted to the encounter known as the _Vesper-spiel_, preliminary to the grand struggle of the morrow. Thus the ordinary duration of such a meeting might be reckoned as three days.

But it is clear that there might also be three distinct encounters on as many separate days, as in the folk-tale. Professor Kittredge, in his article, ‘Who was Sir Thomas Malory?[55]’ notes a very remarkable and pertinent instance taken from the life of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. When that nobleman was Governor of Calais, hearing of a great gathering of knights, to be held in the neighbourhood, ‘he cast in his mynde to do sume newe poynt of chevalry’; and under the several names of _The Grene Knight_, _Chevalier Vert_, and _Chevalier Attendant_, sent three challenges to the French king’s court. These being accepted, he appeared the first two days in differing armour, the third ‘in face opyn,’ on each occasion overthrowing his antagonist.[56] The days in question are given by Rous as January 6th, 7th, and 8th; the year he does not mention; but Professor Kittredge, by a process of elimination, arrives at the conclusion that it must have been either 1416 or 1417. It is, of course, obvious that this feat must have been suggested by the romances. It is, I think, equally obvious that the three days of the romances were not at variance with actual practice. As to the version of the folk-tale there can be no question. The correct number is three—neither more nor less.

It is, of course, also clear that the occurrence of the tournament in the folk-tale must be subsequent to the institution of tournaments as part of the ordinary chivalric and social conditions; but the tale itself must be earlier, as is witnessed both by the archaic nature of the rescue incident and the magical nature of the horses. Trials of skill in horsemanship are known to all stages of society; and the original form of this special incident was doubtless something of this kind. In the Odenwald variant referred to above, the hero has to perform the feat of carrying off on his spear a ring suspended from a beam, and to hang it up again in returning. This is here supposed to form part of the tournament; but it seems most likely that in earlier forms the trial of skill by which the hero was tested and identified was simply some such feat of skilled horsemanship.

Nor do I think that we are to see the influence of romance, rather than of custom, in this transformation. Neither of the poems in which the incident approximates most closely to the folk-tale form, the _Lanzelet_ and the _Ipomedon_, appear to have been particularly popular (certainly not the former), judging from the number of manuscripts in which they have been preserved, while the ‘Tournament’ form of the folk-tale is found all over Europe. It is much more reasonable, surely, to conclude that the episode has been borrowed, as so many others have been borrowed, from the stores of popular tradition than to hold that in this case popular tradition has been modified by the influences of a literary cycle.

But is it not as clear as daylight that all this immense body of evidence absolutely and finally disposes of any claim on the part of Chrétien to be first in the field? The _four_ days of _Cligés_ rule that romance, as a source, out of court at once and for ever. Further, not only is that version demonstrably secondary in itself, but definitely secondary to and dependent upon the _Lancelot_ versions. These correspond with the prevailing colours of the folk-tale—black, red, and white, or green, red, and white.[57] The one is the version of the _Prose Lancelot_, the other of the _Lanzelet_. Chrétien not only gives one day too many, but manifestly does so in order to combine the two versions which he, in common with us, knew, and gives _both_ green and black—two colours which are found together in no single version of all the dozens I have read.

There is a possible ‘clerical’ explanation of the existence of two versions of the _Lancelot_ tale. _Noir_ in the manuscript may have been read _vair_, and a copyist writing from oral dictation may thus have substituted _vert_. But in the face of the green, red, and white of the very primitive Celtic variant given by Mr. Campbell, and confirmed by the Greek parallel, I think it more likely that the three colours of the _Lanzelet_ represent the older form. But inasmuch as in romances, which, like the Arthurian, were supposed to correspond in some measure to the conditions of real life, a green _horse_ would be an impossibility, while yet horse and armour should correspond, black—perhaps under the influence of the _Perceval_ story—would take its place. Both were represented in the folk-tale, and it may be that the version of the _Prose Lancelot_ and of the _Ipomedon_ simply represents ‘the survival of the fittest.’

That there were _two_ versions a closer study will, I think, make evident. Probably those who have followed the argument and illustrations closely will have already detected what hitherto I have left unnoted, that the version of the _Ipomedon_ stands in a much closer relation with certain forms of the folk-tale, _i.e._ the _Petit Berger_ or _a_ group, than is the case with either the _Cligés_ or the two _Lancelot_ versions. In the _Ipomedon_ alone the prize of the Three Days’ Tournament is the hand of the princess. And not only is there agreement in this, the leading, feature, but there is also a curious correspondence in minor details. Thus, both in the poem and in the folk-tale, the hero, in the character of a servant, has already won the princess’s love. In both she is bitterly disappointed at his apparent failure to compete. In the folk-tale she sends each evening to ask why the shepherd-lad has taken no part in the tourney, receiving each time the answer that he was unwell, but would do his best to appear on the morrow. In the poem, each evening Ipomedon sends word to the princess that it is he who has gained the tourney, but that he is leaving the country immediately, and will not be present on the next day. Thus the heroine, in each case, is kept in uncertainty as to the intentions of her lover.

If we add to this the correspondence with the Odenwald variant already pointed out,[58] and the fact that in the _Ipomedon_ alone the hero is wounded on the third day—a feature found not only in the Odenwald story but in several variants of _Le Prince et son Cheval_—it becomes clear that if there be a doubt as to the source of the _Cligés_ or the _Lanzelet_, the _Ipomedon_ version must repose, directly or indirectly, upon the folk-tale.

But, as we have seen, it is precisely the evidence of the _Ipomedon_ which leads us to connect the story with Walter Map, and the romance ascribed to him, the _Lancelot_. What, then, are we to conclude? I think the only satisfactory interpretation is that which I have suggested above, that there were two versions of the story; in one of which the hero was represented as winning, and probably wedding, the princess; in the other the incident, whatever its original form, had already been so far modified as simply to provide an effective setting for his first appearance at Arthur’s court. This is indeed what we find in the _Lanzelet_; and the general tone of that poem, wherein the hero wins the hand of no fewer than four ladies, and certainly weds three of them, shows that there would be no initial improbability in postulating another and more primitive form of the story.

To return to _Cligés_. The _dramatis personæ_ of the tournament episode should be considered. The hero of the adventure does not compete with any number of knights, but is each day confronted with a chosen champion. These are, as I have already shown, Segramor, Lancelot, Perceval, and Gawain; and so far as the first three are concerned they appear here, and here only, their names, even, being otherwise unmentioned throughout the six thousand seven hundred and eighty lines of the poem.

To any one thoroughly familiar with the Arthurian romances, the juxtaposition of these three names is extremely significant. The adventure itself is elsewhere assigned to Lancelot. The hero with whom the _Lancelot_ story in its earlier stages is most closely associated is Perceval; Chrétien himself here introduces Perceval as a famous knight, with whose renown Cligés was already familiar, and ranks him above Lancelot. One of the best-known adventures ascribed to Perceval is, as we have already shown, one in which the three colours, black, red, and white, figure, and in which he overthrows Kay in a manner curiously akin to other versions of the tournament episode. But previous to overthrowing Kay he had vanquished Segramor, who was the first to attack him. Is it not evident that Chrétien, like the authors of the _Ipomedon_ and the original _Lanzelet_, was here reminded of the blood-drops adventure? If it be asked why introduce Segramor instead of Kay, we may recall the fact that while Cligés is represented as nephew to the Emperor of Constantinople, Segramor, as the _Merlin_ tells us, was son to that potentate. Chrétien _may_ have introduced him as less known in connection with this than Kay, who is never once named in _Cligés_; but I think it more likely that it was his parallelism to the hero, as well as his connection with Perceval, which determined his appearance.

But with regard to the latter, there is another point which deserves mention. In that section of the _Peredur_ which does not correspond to any section of the _Conte del Graal_ we find the hero, released from prison by the daughter of his jailer, attending a warlike tournament, in which each day he carries off the prizes; but there is no change of armour, and the days appear to be four instead of three. Previously to this he has also appeared three successive days at a tournament; but overcome by the beauty of the empress, of whom he is enamoured, he remains gazing at her, instead of taking part in the contest, until the third and final day. These passages are deserving of note, as they appear to me to show direct contact between the _Perceval_ and _Lancelot_ stories, and in this instance the borrowing appears to be on the part of the earlier story. Not only is Lancelot released from the prison of the Lady of Malehault to attend a tournament, thus corresponding with the one instance, but when he arrives on the spot he behaves in precisely the same manner at the sight of Guinevere as is recorded of Peredur with the empress. I do not feel able to accept the tournament as a real part of the _Perceval_ story, no other feature of any version of the Perceval ‘_Enfances_’ corresponding with the _formulæ_ of the group in question; yet the correspondence of detail between the two stories is so undeniable that contact of some sort, direct or indirect, there must be, and I think in this case we must hold that the _Peredur_ has been influenced by a version of the _Lancelot_ akin to that preserved in the prose redaction.

To return to _Cligés_. Taking into consideration all the evidence, the importance and widespread character of the folk-tale, the closer correspondence of both the _Ipomedon_ and the _Lanzelet_ to the popular form, and the peculiarities of the _Cligés_ version, it becomes, I think, impossible to doubt that this latter, so far from being the _source_ of the _Lanzelet_, is, as submitted above, not merely posterior to, but distinctly dependent upon a form of that story. And if we admit this, must we not also admit that here, at least, Chrétien did _not_ understand the character of the material with which he was dealing, and that in this instance he certainly deserves the epithet which Professor Foerster asserts we would wish to apply to him, that of _ein verschlechternder Ueberarbeiter_? The phrase, be it remembered, is Professor Foerster’s, and not mine; but so admirably does it suit the present question, that I can only say, ‘_I thank thee, friend, for teaching me this word!_’ Chrétien was _not_ dealing directly with popular tradition, but taking it at second-hand after it had already been modified and worked over in romantic form. To put it tersely, in the Three Days’ Tournament we have a folk-tale theme intelligently adapted by the authors of the _Ipomedon_ and the _Lanzelet_, and misunderstood and ‘muddled’ by Chrétien.

THE BEARING ON THE LANCELOT STORY

But the interesting problems connected with this episode are not all solved when we have determined the ultimate source of the story, and the position to be assigned to Chrétien’s version. As we have seen, there is strong ground for believing that the French poet knew two versions of the _Lancelot_ story; is it not possible that one of these versions may have been the lost French source of the _Lanzelet_? The ‘setting’ of the _Cligés_ tournament, in which the hero makes his first appearance at Arthur’s court, corresponds with that of the _Lanzelet_; and, as we have remarked above, in the _Erec_ we find not only the name of Lancelot, but also that of the enchanter Mauduiz, who appears nowhere save in U. von Zatzikhoven’s poem. Professor Foerster’s opinion is that we must consider the German _Lanzelet_ as ‘_die möglichst getreue Wiedergabe eines französischen Originals_’; and on this point at least, I, for one, am quite prepared to agree with him. Whether, after a real study of that poem (with which I strongly suspect he had only a superficial familiarity), the learned professor will desire to maintain his opinion is another question! But, granting that the German version correctly reproduces the French original, the nature of the work—a loosely connected collection of independent tales, of marked folk-lore character—points to a period of evolution anterior to Chrétien’s well-knit and elaborately polished literary productions.

Then, again, there arises the question, Granting the existence of a _Lancelot_ romance previous to Chrétien, could Walter Map have been the author? On this point it is not easy, with the material at our disposal, to express a decided opinion. Map and Chrétien were certainly contemporaries, but in neither case do we know the date of birth. Map died in 1209, therefore we may suppose he was not born long before 1140; a later date is scarcely probable, as he was a student at Paris in 1154, and at the court of Henry II. before 1162.[59] We do not know when Chrétien wrote the _Erec_, but it was almost certainly some time in the decade 1150-60. That Map should have been the author of a _Lancelot_ poem earlier than the _Erec_ is quite possible, but, perhaps, not very probable; but there would have been ample time for him to write one before the _Cligés_. Thus, while I think it highly probable that Chrétien borrowed from Map in the latter poem, I would reserve my opinion as to the former. Of the probable character of such a work we can gather some idea from Map’s undoubted literary remains; _De Nugis Curialium_ offers abundant proof of the writer’s taste for popular tales and traditions. Had he lived in the nineteenth-twentieth centuries, instead of the twelfth-thirteenth, Map would undoubtedly have been a prominent member of the Folk-Lore Society.[60] His _Lancelot_ poem might have been a short episodic romance of folk-tale character, a Three Days’ Tournament story, or it might have been a collection of such episodes, like the _Lanzelet_, _i.e._ its character would probably be _popular_ rather than _literary_. I should myself have felt inclined to decide for the _Lanzelet_ source, were it not for the evidence of the _Ipomedon_, which appears to presuppose a version closer to the original folk-tale.

Another point to be borne in mind in connection with the _Cligés_, and one to which I have already drawn attention,[61] is the peculiar geography of the poem, which is distinctly Anglo-Norman rather than Arthurian; the tale is obviously composed of originally independent themes; and whatever may have been contained in the book of the Beauvais Library, I think it is at the least possible that part of Chretien’s material came to him from insular sources.

As regards the _Lanzelet_, we know that the source of that poem came from England, and elsewhere[62] I have pointed out that a curious allusion to England (_not_ as is more usual to _Britain_) seems to make it probable that the French original was written in this island. If we couple with this the authorship and evidence of the _Ipomedon_, and the persistent attribution of a _Lancelot_ romance to Walter Map, we have, I think, a strong presumption in favour of an early _insular_ version of that story.

While this study was in the printer’s hands I came across the following allusion to the slaying of a dragon by Lancelot; it occurs in the Auchinleck Manuscript version of _Sir Bevis of Hampton_ (_Cxxx_):—

‘_After Josianis cristing_
_Beves dede a gret fighting—_
_Swich bataile ded never non_
_Cristene man of flesch and bon—_
_Of a dragoun thar beside,_
_That Beves slough ther in that tide;_
_Save Sire Lancelet de Lake_
_He faught with a furdrake_ [fiery dragon],
_And Wade dede also_
_And never knightes boute thai to._’[63]

This allusion is the more interesting as, saving in the case of _Morien_, to which I have already referred, I have nowhere found this special feat attributed to Lancelot; certainly it does not occur in the whole extent of the _Prose Lancelot_, nor is it ever alluded to in that romance. Yet, if my theory of the evolution of the Lancelot legend be correct, such a combat ought certainly, at one time, to have formed part of his story. The evidence of this Anglo-Norman romance, supported as it is by the independent testimony of _Morien_, is therefore especially welcome; I am inclined to think that it strongly increases the probability of a definitely _insular_ version of the story, differing in some respects from the _continental_, having existed at the time the ‘_Sir Bevis_’ was written.

Nor would the existence of such a version be, as Professor Foerster asserts, incompatible with the continental _origin_ of the character;[64] to assert as much is really to stultify his own arguments. Does not the whole system of Professor Foerster rest upon the hypothesis that the character of Arthur, indisputably of insular _origin_, underwent development upon continental ground? The fact that what he roundly denies of Arthur he asserts emphatically as natural for Lancelot throws a flood of light upon the _ex parte_ character of this distinguished scholar’s methods!

If we take into consideration the character of the elements composing the early _Lancelot_ story, a character which, be it remembered, is not a question of suggestion but a matter of proof, we shall become clearly aware that the material for development existed on both sides of the Channel. I believe myself that Lancelot was of continental origin, but I recognise clearly that if the source and development of his story were such as I suppose them to have been, that continental origin was a matter of accident, not of necessity; and if some other scholar should bring forward arguments to prove that the story had its rise on insular rather than on continental ground, I shall be quite prepared to reconsider the question.

So far as the evidence I have now collected is concerned, it looks as if the development of the early _Lancelot_ story might thus be sketched:—

_a._ _Lai_ (presumably Breton), relating theft of king’s son by
water-fairy, amplified by

_b._ Bringing up of youth in Otherworld kingdom, peopled by women only
(source, general Celtic tradition, possibly _Gawain_ legend).

_c._ His entry into the world (_Perceval_ legend).

_d._ Introduction of adventures of _Sea Maiden_ story, _a_ being the
point of contact, and suggesting the development, which may have been
as follows:—

_d^a._ Winning of magic steeds and armour.

_d^b._ { Rescue of princess from monster, and _False Claimant_ story;
or

_d^c._ { Rescue of princess from Otherworld. As we have seen (p. 25),
it would be quite possible for these to be combined.

_d^d._ Appearance at Three Days’ Tournament.

It would seem not improbable that it was the independent existence of incident _d^c_ in the popular tale that led to its coalescing with the Arthurian legend. As I have elsewhere pointed out,[65] the character of the Guinevere abduction story is in itself so primitive that it may well have formed part of the earliest stratum of Arthurian tradition. The variants are of such a nature as to indicate that they arose at a period when the real meaning of the story was still understood, and carefully retained. The tale must therefore be far older than any extant _literary_ version.

If we admit the suggested hypothesis—that the hero of the Lancelot _lai_ became through the ‘mermaid’ incident identified with the hero of the _Sea Maiden_ story—the character of that story, and the immense popularity to which its wide diffusion testifies, would give us a solid working hypothesis to account for the choice of Lancelot as Guinevere’s lover. The similarity of the stories led to his identification with her rescuer, and that step once taken the recognition of him as her lover was—given the social conditions of the time and the popularity of the _Tristan_ story—a foregone conclusion.[66]

But this evolution, so far as we can tell, took place on _both_ sides of the Channel. Thus, while I have found no single _insular_ version which gives the Tournament episode, I have equally found no _continental_ variant which contains the mermaid. Yet it is the latter (mermaid) which appears to form the point of contact between the folk-tale and the _lai_, while it is the persistent recurrence of the former (the Tournament) which has given us the key to disentangle the complicated evolution of the story.

Here is a point on which I should wish to make my position perfectly clear. I do not think that Lancelot was _ab origine_ the hero of a variant of this popular and widely-spread folk-tale. The persistent element in the _Lancelot_ story is, as I have elsewhere shown, his connection with the beneficent Lady of the Lake. Now the maiden of the folk-tale is a sea, not a lake, maiden, and is, further, consistently represented as of a malicious, rather than a kindly, character. True, she aids the fisher in the first instance, but she belongs to that order of beings whose gifts, apparently desirable, are saddled with conditions which turn to the undoing, rather than to the profit of the receiver. Also, her presence in the story is restricted to a small and well-marked group of variants, which apparently preserve a primitive type of the story, and are never combined with the Tournament, which recurs so frequently in the _Lancelot_ romances.

Again this folk-tale, _quâ_ folk-tale, does not belong to the same group as that which offers parallels to the _Perceval_ story; yet the _Lancelot_ story was certainly affected, and that at an early stage of development, by the _Perceval_. Folk-lore students are well aware of the facility with which one story-type can become contaminated by another originally distinct from it; and while I see in the common ‘folk-tale’ origin of the two legends a satisfactory explanation of the undeniable influence traceable through all the earlier stages of the _Lancelot_ evolution, I would yet distinguish sharply between the two heroes. Perceval is a British (insular) Celt; Lancelot a continental (Breton) Celt, the development of whose story is posterior to that of the insular hero. For all these reasons I think it most probable that Lancelot was the hero of an independent, and originally short, tale, which by an accidental similarity of incident became connected with one of the most popular of known folk-tales, from which it freely borrowed adventures, and which, through the medium of one of these adventures, became later incorporated with the Arthurian tradition and developed upon romantic lines.

EVIDENCE FOR AN INSULAR VERSION OF THE ROMANCE

The whole character of the earlier _Lancelot_ story is strongly reminiscent of a _lai_, and I see no reason to depart from the opinion expressed in my _Lancelot_ ‘Studies,’ that the root of the whole wonderful growth is to be sought in such a _lai_.

Nor do I see reason to doubt that this _lai_ may have been of continental origin, and at the same time have taken this most important step in development upon insular ground. I cannot agree with those scholars who appear to regard the Channel as an impassable barrier to communication previous to the date of Chrétien de Troyes, and the most facile medium of intercourse immediately after that date!

For more than a century previous, _i.e._ from the days of Edward the Confessor, intercourse between the English court and the north of France had been frequent and continuous; for nearly a century the kings of England had also been princes of France. When, therefore, we find, as we do, that the materials for the development of a story existed on both sides of the Channel, and that the story, in its completed form, is akin to both continental and insular variants, forming, as it were, a link between the two, and combining forms which are not known to meet elsewhere, the conclusion that the process of evolution was not confined to one country appears neither illogical nor unfounded.

I would, therefore, now suggest that we have solid grounds for supposing that the story of Lancelot, starting as a Breton _lai_, and brought in that form to England, became in these islands connected with a special variant of a very widely diffused folk-tale. Having borrowed from this tale certain adventures, it found its way back, in this enlarged form, to the Continent, where the story from which it had borrowed being equally well known, it underwent further development on the same lines. I suspect that here the flying horses of the Celtic tale became transformed into the normal steeds of the Three Days’ Tournament, though the colour of the armour—green, red, and white—was at first retained.

But on which side of the Channel was the final and most important step, the incorporation with the Arthurian cycle, taken? Of the various versions of Guinevere’s abduction, the Melwas story exists only in an insular text, the _Vita Gildæ_, and this is apparently connected with a partly lost and entirely confused Welsh tradition. The Meleagant version is by locality directly connected with Melwas; and the only extant version of the Falerîn abduction tale came from England. I submit that here again we have reasonable ground for the hypothesis that the identification of Lancelot as Guinevere’s rescuer, and subsequently as her lover, may be due to insular rather than continental development. The question is, as will be seen, by no means an easy one, and I should prefer to express no definite opinion as to the real bearing of the evidence here adduced. There are, as I have shown, indications pointing in opposite directions. The precise value and relation of these indications will be better realised as we become more familiar with what is at present a somewhat novel interpretation of the facts. In any case it will be seen that the theory here advanced only affects the earlier stages of the _Lancelot_ story, leaving untouched the question of its development as part of the Arthurian romantic cycle. It affords us a working hypothesis which may enable us to bridge the gulf between Lancelot the independent hero (_Lanzelet_) and Lancelot the queen’s lover (_Charrette_), a gulf which has hitherto presented a problem baffling to the Arthurian student.

But is it not also apparent that, in the light of the evidence here collected, the theory of an Anglo-Norman Arthurian tradition, independent of, and anterior to, Chrétien’s poems should no longer be contemptuously derided? Whatever may be the eventual verdict on the evolution of the _Lancelot_ story, the examination of the various romantic versions of the Tournament story, in the light of folk-lore evidence, has, I think, made absolutely clear to any unprejudiced critic that the _Cligés_ version cannot possibly be the source of either the _Lanzelet_ or the _Ipomedon_, but represents a version further removed from the original form, and in all probability dependent upon some variant, or variants, of the _Lancelot_. And if this be the case in one poem, and that the very poem in which the admirers of Chrétien assert roundly that his independence is most clearly shown, are we not justified in our hesitation as regards his other works?

In my _Lancelot_ ‘Studies’ I showed that Professor Foerster’s theory as to the origin of the _Yvain_ would not bear the test of strict examination; that evidence, both internal and external, could be adduced in favour of the view that the tale was but a collection of _lais_, put together and worked over by others before Chrétien gave the final touch which converted them into a literary whole. Before long I hope to show, what I have recently recognised as a fact capable of demonstration, that the _Perceval_ ‘_Enfances_,’ so far from being the source of the other versions, is but an incomplete and inferior version of a story, which in its original and perfect form no longer exists, but is better preserved elsewhere. _Erec_, so far, I have not examined, but I have little doubt that the result of careful investigation will here be the same; certain it is that the initial adventure, the chase of a fairy stag, represents a superstition alive in these islands to this day. The trackers on Dartmoor claim to be able to distinguish the ‘slot’ of the fairy deer from among all others, and will solemnly warn the huntsmen of the futility of following such a trail.

Those of us, and they are many, who entertain a profound respect, not merely for M. Gaston Paris’ learning, but also for his keen critical instinct, and what I can best express as ‘sense of atmosphere,’ have hesitated, even though little evidence appeared to be forthcoming, to dismiss lightly, not to say discourteously, a theory which had the support of his authority; the foregoing pages will, I hope, show grounds for believing that an investigation, conducted perhaps on somewhat different lines to those hitherto in favour, will fully justify this hesitation.

We are only on the threshold of Arthurian criticism, and till we have thoroughly familiarised ourselves with the elementary conditions of the problem before us, it is both premature and unscientific to expect to obtain in any section of this wide field a result which can be claimed as permanent. Thoroughness is an admirable quality; but the thoroughness which consists in carefully and microscopically surveying a single part, before we have ascertained the relation of that part to the whole, is only too apt to result in throwing that whole hopelessly out of focus. The time has not yet come when a final study of any part of the Arthurian legend, based upon a comparison of all the texts, is possible or indeed desirable. The different threads that form the shifting pattern of the fabric are so interwoven that no one can as yet be disentangled _beyond a certain point_ without injury to the whole.

Thus neither the _Gawain_, the _Perceval_, nor the _Lancelot_ stories can at the present moment receive satisfactory and _final_ treatment. In the advanced stages of Arthurian legendary development these three main lines of tradition have become so entangled, have crossed and complicated each other to such an extent, that it is only by following what we may call a parallel method of study that we can hope to determine their exact relationship to each other; while until that exact relationship be accurately determined, a scientific study of the cycle, as a whole, is impossible. There appear to me to be three possible lines of investigation, any one of which will probably throw light on the other two; while the results to be obtained from all three would go far towards providing a sound and scientific basis for future inquiries. These three are (_a_) The various versions of the Gawain Grail quest; absolutely necessary if we desire to understand the development of the Grail section of the cycle. (_b_) The _Perceval_ continuations; which contain sections belonging to early and non-cyclic versions of the stories affected, combined with sections drawn from later and cyclic redactions. These texts will also throw light upon the small and interesting cycle of the _Bel Inconnu_, which is connected with all the three lines of tradition, and is important for all. (_c_) A comparative study of the various _Lancelot_ versions, which will enable us to disentangle the earlier _Perceval-Lancelot_ redactions from the later _Galahad_ development.

But in this investigation there are certain principles which must be kept clearly in view. We must remember that a cycle like the Arthurian cycle, compounded largely of what we may call mythical and imaginative elements, and largely devoid of historical basis, cannot be examined and criticised on the same principles and by the same methods as can the Charlemagne cycle, where historic conditions, though modified for romantic purposes, have controlled and shaped the process of development.[67]

In this latter case an appeal to documentary evidence, and a criticism conducted largely on literary lines, is, by nature of the material to be dealt with, entirely in its place; in the former, inasmuch as the material of which it is composed belongs far less to history than to that indefinable body we call popular tradition, which never finds more than partial expression in literature, and yet maintains its character practically unchanged throughout the centuries, we must follow a different method.

Not that the historic element is to be neglected; far from it. On the contrary, I would urge that greater attention be bestowed on certain historic factors than has hitherto been the case. The Arthurian romances do not, as do the Charlemagne, reflect more or less correctly certain facts, or periods of history, but the circumstances and surroundings of their origin may nevertheless have been more or less determined by historic conditions, _i.e._ the influence exercised by the court and policy of Henry II.

We are perfectly well aware that a feature of that monarch’s domestic policy was his desire to conciliate the Welsh by a clever use of their popular traditions. The alleged discovery of King Arthur’s tomb at Glastonbury was, as most historians now recognise, merely an ingenious move in the political game. To what extent he carried his encouragement and adoption of Arthurian tradition we have perhaps hardly yet realised. The fact that it was possible to publish in 1167 a correspondence purporting to be between the King and Arthur in Avalon shows that if Henry did not directly encourage the forgery, he at least saw no ground for discouraging it, and was willing to play into the hands of any one furthering this special line of conciliation. We know, as a matter of literary evidence, that the manuscripts of a very large section of Arthurian prose romance attribute their composition to the direct command of the king; but so far we have not attempted to ascertain the precise value to be placed on this recurring testimony. I believe myself that a careful investigation into the literary patronage exercised by Henry, and his interest in Arthurian traditions, would yield results somewhat disconcerting to the adherents of the Continental School.

Of the value of folk-lore and folk-tale as witnesses in the case of a group of stories based largely upon popular tradition, and in their earlier stages of evolution the property of popular story-tellers, we are only slowly becoming aware. But the study of story-transmission has in these last years made immense strides, and may now claim to be fairly based upon sound scientific principles. The extent to which such a study, accurately and carefully carried on, may reflect light upon allied subjects, such as the Arthurian cycle, has yet to be realised. It may be hoped that these pages will lend encouragement to the following up of this special line of investigation.

But there is a danger in our path. Admiration for the learning and indefatigable industry of German scholars has, I fear, caused too many of us to erect into a fetich the result of their labours, and to hold ourselves thereby absolved from the toil of first-hand investigation. This is to render no true service to the cause of scholarship; no one man, no group of men, may claim to be infallible. The result of recent investigation into the value and correctness of Dr. Sommer’s _Studies on the Sources of Malory_,[68] a book which for ten years past has been unhesitatingly accepted in scholarly circles as a reliable authority, should be an object lesson to all of us in the necessity of caution, and the individual responsibility which rests upon each to ascertain independently, so far as it be possible, the correctness and solidity of the ground upon which we found our arguments and our conclusions.

Careful and systematic work, with, from time to time, the revision and comparison of results, only to be attained by publication, will, I believe, before very long, enable us to place the criticism of the Arthurian cycle upon a really satisfactory basis. At present it is vain to hope that any one of us can produce, in this particular line of literary investigation, a _magnum opus_ that shall be beyond the necessity of revision, and sealed with the stamp of permanent and enduring value.

Footnotes

[1]Professor Foerster’s edition of the poems of Chrétien de Troyes are
probably the most satisfactory critical texts we at present possess,
but the value of these is greatly impaired by the controversial use
made of the prefaces attached to them.

[2]These and other details will be found in Mr. Ward’s article on
‘Ipomedon,’ _Catalogue of Romances_, vol. i.

[3]_Ipomedon_ in drei englischen Bearbeitungen: Breslau 1889.

[4]_Supra_, p. xxix.

[5]The fact that, as we have pointed out, he sometimes agrees with one,
sometimes with the other version, seems to indicate that he knew the
common original of both.

[6]_Ipomedon_, A. l. 5500.

[7]_Lanzelet_, Von Zatzikhoven, ll. 2911-15.

[8]_Dutch Lancelot_, vol. i. ll. 42,819 _et seq._

[9]_Ipomedon_, p. xxviii.

[10]For the various epilogues and ascriptions of authorship, cf. _Die
Sage vom Gral_, Birch-Hirschfeld, chap. vii.

[11]Cf. Birch-Hirschfeld, _supra_.

[12]_Vide De Nugis Curialium_, ed. Wright, p. viii.

[13]Cf. _supra_, p. 5.

[14]Cf. P. Paris, _Romans de la Table Ronde_, vol. iii.

[15]Cf. _D. L._, vol. i. ll. 19,595 _et seq._; _Legend of Sir Lancelot_,
p. 235.

[16]Cf. _supra_, p. 5.

[17]_The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac_, Grimm Library, vol. xii.

[18]Cf. the reference to this adventure in _Morien_, quoted _supra_, p.
5.

[19]For these three colours in this connection, cf. my translation of
_Parzival_, vol. i. p. 317.

[20]P. 5.

[21]Cf. _Lanzelet_, ll. 9309 _et seq._

[22]Hucher, _Le Grand S. Graal_, vol. i. p. 421.

[23]Professor Foerster’s remark (_Charrette_, Introduction, p. xlvi),
that Hugo would, not improbably, take with him a copy of the last
romance which had created a popular _furore_, is one of those
gratuitous assumptions which, to the learned professor, assume the
virtue of facts, but which cannot be admitted, by any serious
critic, as a contribution to the argument. Professor Foerster seems
to imagine a twelfth century ‘Mudie’ with a ‘run’ on the latest
novel! If the source of the _Lanzelet_ had created in any sense a
_furore_, it would scarcely have disappeared so completely.
Considering the slowness of reproduction in those days, it is at
least as likely that the book was an old and valued favourite; but
as I said above, such hypotheses do not advance the question one way
or the other.

[24]Cf. _Cligés_, ll. 4575-4985.

[25]_Charrette_, p. xliii.

[26]P. cxxvi.

[27]P. cxxxviii.

[28]P. xix.

[29]I believe myself that the two works of the greatest importance for
determining the evolution of the Arthurian cycle are these lost
French sources of the _Lanzelet_ and of the _Parzival_. It is not, I
think, impossible that fragments at least may remain entombed in
some library. When their importance is more generally recognised
there may perhaps be an organised attempt made at their discovery.

[30]I have not seen either of these German fragments. Professor
Foerster’s tendency to claim as Chrétien’s undoubted property
everything that even remotely resembles the work of the French poet
makes caution needful. I give the statement entirely upon his
authority. With regard to the passage in the _Parzival_, Book XII.
l. 116, _et seq._, at first sight it seems clearly to refer to
Chrétien’s poem; but, as Professor Foerster himself admits, the work
clearly consists of two sections, and it seems quite possible that
the first part, the story of Alexander and Soredamors, may have been
known independently. As the testimony of the _Perceval_ poems
proves, there was current a love story connected with a sister of
Gawain. The weak point in this _Parzival_ allusion is, that the poet
is recalling the torments that Gawain and his kin have suffered
through ‘_Minne_.’ Now the love story of Cligés and Phenice is far
more tragic than that of Cligés’ parents; and it is difficult to
understand why, if the writer knew the _whole_ poem, he should refer
only to the weaker illustration, as both are equally connected with
Gawain. I suspect myself that the allusion was in Wolfram’s source,
and refers to the source of the _Cligés_.

[31]Printed in Weber’s _Metrical Romances_, vol. i.

[32]Cf. _Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 81.

[33]_Ibid._ p. 5.

[34]Chaps. ii and iv.

[35]Vol. ii. No. XLIII.

[36]_Tiroler Kinder- und Haus-Märchen._

[37]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. i. No. I.

[38]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. i. No. XII.

[39]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. ii. p. 96.

[40]_Op. cit._, vol. ii. No. LV.

[41]Grimm Library, vols. ii., iii., v.

[42]_Perseus_, vol. iii. p. 4.

[43]_Perseus_, vol. iii. p. 15.

[44]Cf. _The Cuchullin Saga_, Grimm Library, vol. viii. p. 81.

[45]Vol. i. p. 96.

[46]Cf. _supra_, p. 23.

[47]A reference to _Fortunio_, one of the tales of our group, included
in the fifteenth century collection of Straparola.

[48]The additions in italics are mine.—J. L. W.

[49]To this our present investigation enables us to add that while M.
Cosquin’s shepherd lad unites the pastoral features with the courtly
tournament, the Greek variant retains the flying steeds and gives us
the tournament to boot.

[50]The number is of course far greater, but Mr. Campbell unfortunately
did not live to know the _Contes Lorrains_ or the _Perseus_.

[51]_Popular Tales of the West Highlands_, vol. iv. pp. 277, 278.

[52]‘The Black Horse,’ _More Celtic Fairy Tales_, p. 226.

[53]Mr. Hartland also draws attention to the parallel between the three
disguises of the hero and the three dresses of the heroine in
certain variants of the _Cinderella_ story. In the _Aschenbrödel_
the robes are woven of sun, moon, and stars.

[54]Berlin, 1881.

[55]_Harvard Studies and Notes_, vol. v. pp. 94, 95.

[56]John Rous, _Life of Richard, Earl of Warwick_.

[57]I should like to draw the attention of readers to the fact that
these two ‘triplets’ of colours are also to be met with elsewhere.
Thus black, white, and red are found, as we have seen, in a famous
incident of the _Perceval_; and that curious book, _Durandus on
Symbolism_, gives them as the colours of the three veils covering
the altar at Passiontide. White, green, and red are found in the
legend of the Tree of Life, and Solomon’s Ship, preserved in the
_Queste_ and _Grand Saint Graal_. A friend, learned in such matters,
has informed me that these sets of colours represent certain
alchemical processes, and in that connection were well known in
mediæval times. It seems possible that there may have been some
hidden and mystical significance attached to their earliest use; we
have not fathomed all the secrets of folk-lore.

[58]P. 25.

[59]For details of Map’s life, cf. _Dictionary of National Biography_,
and the Introduction to Wright’s edition of _De Nugis Curialium_.

[60]I would draw the attention of students of the _Lais_ of Marie de
France to the fact that Map gives several versions of the wedding of
a knight with a fairy, or Otherworld, mistress. Also a version of a
visit to the Otherworld kingdom with an ending closely corresponding
with that of the _Voyage of Bran_, and _Guingamor_, and in each case
he locates the story in Wales. It is perfectly clear that tales,
such as we find in the _Lais_, were at least as well known in these
islands as on the Continent.

[61]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 83.

[62]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 11. The folk-lore allusions in the
_Lanzelet_ are worth following up.

[63]I am indebted to Mr. W. B. Blaikie for kindly verifying the
quotation for me.

[64]Cf. _Charrette_, p. lxxvii.

[65]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 46 _et seq._

[66]The theory which I advanced in chap. vii. of the _Legend of Sir
Lancelot_ with regard to the temporary disappearance of the
tradition of Guinevere’s infidelity is, I think, strengthened by the
evidence of the various ‘chastity-test’ _Lais_, Horn, Mantle, Glove.
We might reasonably expect Guinevere to come but poorly out of such
an ordeal; as a rule, however, she escapes very easily, far more
easily, indeed, than the majority of the ladies of the court. In one
case we are clearly given to understand that her sole error, a
trivial one, has been one of thought. Now the _lais_ represent, as
is generally admitted, an early stage of romantic evolution, and
taken into consideration with the evidence of the earlier poems,
they certainly appear to strengthen the argument tentatively put
forward in my _Lancelot_, _e.g._ that the tradition of the queen’s
faithlessness to her husband belonged to the _historic_ legend and
was, as such, preserved in the pseudo-chronicles; it had no
existence in the _romantic_ legend till introduced under the
influence of a special social condition, and in this its later form,
it is not to be regarded as a survival of the historic Modred story,
but as a later and independent development.

[67]Cf. _Popular Studies_, No. 10 (Nutt), _The Romance Cycle of
Charlemagne and his Peers_, where I have pointed out the fundamental
differences between the cycles.

[68]On this point, cf. Mr. Greg’s review of my _Lancelot_ studies,
_Folk-Lore_, December 1901.

Edinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable

Transcriber’s Notes

--Copyright notice provided as in the original—this e-text is public
domain in the country of publication.

--Silently corrected palpable typos; left non-standard spellings and
dialect unchanged.

--Compared text section headings to the Table of Contents; inserted
additional headings (but did not reword existing headings) to match
the Table of Contents.

--Only in the text versions, delimited italicized or blackletter text in
_underscores_ (the HTML version reproduces the font form of the
printed book.)

--Only in the text versions, preceded superscript characters by a caret
(as in d^a).

End of Project Gutenberg's The Three Days' Tournament, by Jessie L. Weston