Part 2

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.]